#I have more of their foreign/domestic policy opinions but I think if I posted any more of this stuff

[compacflt]

okay "normie median Biden voter ice" got me. That's funny. But also so true! It prob took him a bit to vote dem too (though I believe that Ice would have never voted for Trump). Would love to hear more thoughts on Ice and Mav's politics. Also the list of who they would have voted for if you're willing to share.

i do worry that posting my extremely in-depth headcanons about some of this stuff will have the JKR “wizard shit” effect on my writing and ruin it a little, but ask and ye shall receive

copy-pasted straight from my list of “unhinged compacflt!top gun headcanons” that ive been keeping since september: on ice & mav's politics

16. Since their friendship began, Ice has always told Maverick who to vote for, since Maverick doesn't care enough to pay attention to national politics. They are begrudging ConservaDems (conservative political views, would vote conservative every election if Republicans weren’t actively sending them to war/actively promoting fascism). Ice’s voting record (and after 1988, Mav’s too) 1980-2020—note that he has always considered himself an “educated moderate”: 1980: Reagan. 1984: Reagan. 1988: Bush. 1992: Bush. 1996: Clinton (reaction to aftermath of PGW. Doesn’t care that Clinton enacted DADT because “I’m not [redacted], so it doesn’t apply to me”). 2000: Gore (refusal to vote for another Bush). 2004: Kerry (Mav votes Bush this year out of spite as he and Ice are going through their break-up). 2008: McCain (Navy loyalty). 2012: Obama (liked him as a person/worked closely with him, didn’t like his policies so much). 2016: Clinton (no other alternative). 2020: Biden (actually liked/previously worked with Biden, and now actively married to another man and therefore had to make some liberal concessions). 2024-onwards they will vote for any Democrat as long as they aren’t a “socialist.”

17. Also, Maverick didn’t vote in 2016. Partially because in my universe the TGM mission takes place that November, very near the election, and he has bigger fish to fry (something Ice will later take him to task for), and partially because I genuinely think he wouldn’t be able to stomach either mainstream candidate and probably would’ve voted for Libertarian Gary Johnson, which might have torn his relationship with Ice to shreds a few days before schedule. “Are you fucking kidding me? Johnson? Pete, this moron’s moronic party wants to abolish the driver’s license—” / “—Yeah, and then I could ride your sweet wheels with no problem whatsoever—maybe he’ll abolish pilots’ licenses, too, I’d like to see that—” / “If you vote for Gary fucking Johnson, I will very happily stop footing the bill for your piece-of-shit airplane, and you can see how useful your pilot’s license is then—” / So Mav didn’t vote in 2016. 

35. In terms of what he Tweets: I do foresee, post-retirement, Ice basically becoming a neoliberal military intellectual type on Twitter a la Mark Hertling (look him up on Twitter). Bio: “Retired @SECNAV. Advisor @WhiteHouse and @VoteVets. Contributing writer @TheAtlantic. Interested in geopolitics & modern warfare. Aviator, husband, Padres fan. [American flag emoji]” Only posts pictures of himself and Maverick at three specific annual events: 1. their wedding anniversary (“36 years with this fool and he’s still surprised to find out that I like the F-5 better than the A-4 #happyanniversary”), 2. every EAA Airventure (huge airplane convention), 3. San Francisco’s Fleet Week (which of course they MUST attend, they even headline it in 2018). Informative, analytical, highly-respected. Maybe goes on CNN or NBC all the time to talk about civil-military relations shit (aversion to FOX since the start of the Iraq War). Gonna say he had like four really viral threads about Russia and Ukraine in April or May and so has 300k followers or something like that. He has a personal website that links back to his Twitter and every essay he writes for international publications, with a pretty braggadocious bio (something along the lines of “Tom Kazansky has directly almost started global nuclear war twice in his life, and in the thirty-year gap in between, sold the Swiss half their entire goddamn Air Force and directed an entire Fleet during the Iraq War”). Lots of tweets like “Military aviation hot take: Compared to the F-22, the F-35 is a waste of money. Source: husband with 400+ hours of F-35 experience.” / “[Quote tweet of Russian Foreign Minister boasting about Su-57 production lines] Oh, so you guys finally figured out how to make more than one every other year?” / “Analysis of the failure of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine, from an ex-US Pacific Fleet Commander’s perspective: a short [thread emoji] [This thread gets 26k likes and 4k retweets]” / “This weekend my husband & I flew in to @EAA Oshkosh #OSH19 & took home first place for best P-51. Not to brag, but.” (A reply to this tweet: “Sir, you really know how to bury the lede that your husband is Adm. Pete ‘Maverick’ Mitchell. I had to look it up on Wikipedia.” / @TKazansky: “What, was it not obvious? Who else could it have been?”) Also, I see him writing a whole bunch of op-eds for international political magazines a la Tom Nichols (look him up on Twitter too). Writing analyses of recent geopolitical/military events for the New York Times, the New Yorker, the Bulwark, the Navy Times, the Atlantic, Bellingcat, etc. Not so much focused on domestic issues (but VoteVets [socially progressive vets’ group] board member, and ardently pro-democracy, yay!). He’s a smart guy.

37. This is not a headcanon, just kind of a… a real-life implication. My Ice was Deputy Commander of Third Fleet in 2003, meaning he’d have been there in command of the USS Abraham Lincoln when President Bush gave his “Mission Accomplished” speech aboard that ship in May less than 2 months after the initial American invasion of Iraq. Very premature & embarrassing. Ice would’ve been in direct contact with Bush/Cheney/NSC bureaucrats many, many times during the war. I genuinely believe this is what pushed him over the edge into firm liberal territory.

[newstfionline]

Wednesday, January 6, 2021

Covidization (Worldcrunch) COVID-19 is killing people even without the virus. Spain’s Lung Cancer Group, a research body, believes lung cancer will have killed 1,300 people more in the country in 2020 than predictive models had anticipated before the pandemic struck. Between January and April this year, lockdowns and diverted healthcare resources meant 30% fewer initial oncology consultations than during those months in 2019. This is just one of the many pathologies with significantly worse data for what many are calling a “covidization” of healthcare. Covidization is a term coined by Madhukar Pai, a tuberculosis researcher at Montreal’s McGill University to describe the pandemic’s distorting effect on resource allocation, prioritization and media attention in fighting other pathologies. Data appear to have confirmed his opinion. Since April this year, the European Commission has devoted 137 million euros to research on the coronavirus, or twice all the monies spent in 2018 on tuberculosis, malaria and AIDS.

Travel in the COVID-era (Foreign Policy) In a signal of what travel in a pandemic world will look like, a group of U.S. airlines have called on the United States to drop travel restrictions banning citizens from Europe and elsewhere in favor of a pre-flight negative coronavirus test requirement. The airlines have backed a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) proposal to create a global program for testing travelers prior to entering U.S. borders. Vice President Mike Pence, the head of the White House coronavirus task force, is due to discuss the proposal during a meeting today.

Golf is not essential travel (AP) The speculation began with curious activity by U.S. military aircraft reported circling President Trump's Turnberry golf resort in western Scotland in November. Then the Sunday Post in Scotland reported that Glasgow Prestwick Airport “has been told to expect the arrival of a US military Boeing 757 aircraft, that is occasionally used by Trump, on January 19.” Could the American president, on his last full day in office, wing his way to his ancestral Scotland to hit the links at his shuttered resort, possibly missing the inauguration? On Tuesday, the leader of Scotland, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, was asked if Trump was headed her way, and what might be her message to him? At her daily news briefing, Sturgeon said, “I have no idea what Donald Trump’s travel plans are, you’ll be glad to know. … But “We are not allowing people to come into Scotland now without an essential purpose, which would apply to him, just as it applies to everybody else. Coming to play golf is not what I would consider an essential purpose.” The White House said that the reports of a Trump trip to Turnberry were “not accurate. President Trump has no plans to travel to Scotland.”

Divided U.S., Not Covid, Is the Biggest Risk to World in 2021, Survey Finds (Bloomberg) With the global economy still in the teeth of the Covid-19 crisis, the Eurasia group sees a divided U.S. as a key risk this year for a world lacking leadership. “In decades past, the world would look to the U.S. to restore predictability in times of crisis. But the world’s preeminent superpower faces big challenges of its own,” said Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer and Chairman Cliff Kupchan in a report on the top risks for 2021. Starting with the difficulties facing the Biden Administration in a divided U.S, the report flags 10 geopolitical, climate and individual country risks that could derail the global economic recovery. An extended Covid-19 impact and K-shaped recoveries in both developed and emerging economies is the second biggest risk factor cited in the report. Biden will have difficulty gaining new confidence in U.S. global leadership as he struggles to manage domestic crises, the report said. With a large segment of the U.S. casting doubt over his legitimacy, the political effectiveness and longevity of his “asterisk presidency,” the future of the Republican Party, and the very legitimacy of the U.S. political model are all in question, it added. “A superpower torn down the middle cannot return to business as usual. And when the most powerful country is so divided, everybody has a problem,” said Bremmer and Kupchan.

Venezuela’s socialists take control of once-defiant congress (AP) Nicolás Maduro was set to extend his grip on power Tuesday as the ruling socialist party prepared to assume the leadership of Venezuela’s congress, the last institution in the country it didn’t already control. Maduro’s allies swept legislative elections last month boycotted by the opposition and denounced as a sham by the U.S., the European Union and several other foreign governments. While the vote was marred by anemically low turnout, it nonetheless seemed to relegate into irrelevancy the U.S.-backed opposition led by 37-year-old lawmaker Juan Guaidó. The opposition’s political fortunes have tanked as Venezuelans own hopes for change have collapsed. Recent opinion polls show support for Guaidó having fallen by more than half since he first rose to challenge Maduro two years ago. Meanwhile, Maduro has managed to retain a solid grip on power and the military, the traditional arbiter of political disputes.

Few reforms would benefit Japan as much as digitising government (Economist) It is a ritual almost as frequent and as fleeting as observing the cherry blossoms each year. A new Japanese government pledges to move more public services online. Almost as soon as the promise is made, it falls to the ground like a sad pink petal. In 2001 the government announced it would digitise all its procedures by 2003—yet almost 20 years later, just 7.5% of all administrative procedures can be completed online. Only 7.3% of Japanese applied for any sort of government service online, well behind not only South Korea and Iceland, but also Mexico and Slovakia. Japan is an e-government failure. That is a great pity, and not just for hapless Japanese citizens wandering from window to window in bewildering government offices. Japan’s population is shrinking and ageing. With its workforce atrophying, Japan relies even more than other economies on gains in productivity to maintain prosperity. The Daiwa Institute of Research, a think-tank in Tokyo, reckons that putting government online could permanently boost gdp per person by 1%. The lapse is all the more remarkable given Japan’s wealth and technological sophistication. Indeed, that seems to be part of the problem. Over the years big local technology firms have vied for plum contracts to develop it systems for different, fiercely autonomous, government departments. Most ended up designing custom software for each job. The result is a profusion of incompatible systems.

An ‘orchard of bad apples’ weighs on new Afghan peace talks (AP) Afghan negotiators are to resume talks with the Taliban on Tuesday aimed at finding an end to decades of relentless conflict even as hopes wane and frustration and fear grow over a spike in violence across Afghanistan that has combatants on both sides blaming the other. Torek Farhadi, a former Afghan government advisor, said the government and the Taliban are “two warring minorities,” with the Afghan people caught in between—“one says they represent the republic, the other says we want to end foreign occupation and corruption. But the war is (only) about power.” The stop-and-go talks come amid growing doubt over a U.S.-Taliban peace deal brokered by outgoing President Donald Trump. An accelerated withdrawal of U.S. troops ordered by Trump means just 2,500 American soldiers will still be in Afghanistan when President-elect Joe Biden takes office this month. The Taliban have grown in strength since their ouster in 2001 and today control or hold sway over half the country. But a consensus has emerged that a military victory is impossible for either side.

Iraq, Struggling to Pay Debts and Salaries, Plunges Into Economic Crisis (NYT) Economists say Iraq is facing its biggest financial threat since Saddam Hussein’s time. Iraq is running out of money to pay its bills. That has created a financial crisis with the potential to destabilize the government—which was ousted a year ago after mass protests over corruption and unemployment—touch off fighting among armed groups, and empower Iraq’s neighbor and longtime rival, Iran. With its economy hammered by the pandemic and plunging oil and gas prices, which account for 90 percent of government revenue, Iraq was unable to pay government workers for months at a time last year. Last month, Iraq devalued its currency, the dinar, for the first time in decades, immediately raising prices on almost everything in a country that relies heavily on imports. And last week, Iran cut Iraq’s supply of electricity and natural gas, citing nonpayment, leaving large parts of the country in the dark for hours a day. “I think it’s dire,” said Ahmed Tabaqchali, an investment banker and senior fellow at the Iraq-based Institute of Regional and International Studies. “Expenditures are way above Iraq’s income.” Many Iraqis fear that despite Iraqi government denials there will be more devaluations to come.

Qatar ruler lands in Saudi Arabia for summit to end blockade (AP) Qatar’s ruling emir arrived in Saudi Arabia and was greeted with an embrace by the kingdom’s crown prince on Tuesday, following an announcement that the kingdom would end its yearslong embargo on the tiny Gulf Arab state. The decision to open borders was the first major step toward ending the diplomatic crisis that has deeply divided U.S. defense partners, frayed societal ties and torn apart a traditionally clubby alliance of Arab states. The diplomatic breakthrough comes after a final push by the outgoing Trump administration and fellow Gulf state Kuwait to mediate an end to the crisis. The timing was auspicious: Saudi Arabia may be seeking to both grant the Trump administration a final diplomatic win and remove stumbling blocs to building warm ties with the Biden administration, which is expected to take a firmer stance toward the kingdom. Qatar’s only land border has been mostly closed since June mid-2017, when Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain launched a boycott of the small but influential Persian Gulf country. The Saudi border, which Qatar relied on for the import of dairy products, construction materials and other goods, opened briefly during the past three years to allow Qataris into Saudi Arabia to perform the Islamic hajj pilgrimage. It was unclear what concessions Qatar had made regarding a shift in its policies. While the Saudi decision to end the embargo marks a milestone toward resolving the spat, the path toward full reconciliation is far from guaranteed.

[elcorreodetorreon]

Rusia. News from Ambassador Yakovenko regarding Salisbury Incident and lack of response from UK

 23 February 2019

Moscow: 16:09

London: 13:09

Consular queries:  

+44 (0) 203 668 7474  

info@rusemb.org.uk  

 356 days have passed since the Salisbury incident - no credible information or response from the British authorities                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     348 days have passed since the death of Nikolay Glushkov on British soil - no credible information or response from the British authorities

PRESS RELEASES AND NEWS

22.02.2019

Russia 2019-2025: 5G country (by Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko).

Despite the attention that foreign policy enjoys in the media headlines, Russian domestic social and economic development enjoys the top priority for my compatriots. That was also the main theme of President Putin’s Address to the Federal Assembly. Serious progress has been made in this area in the recent decade according to the long-term national objectives that we have set for ourselves. Massive financial resources, accumulated by virtue of the nation’s creativity, talents and hard work, are concentrated on development goals. Just a few examples:

Extra $1 bn has been earmarked for the social benefits within the new home loans system in 2019-2021, which will be used by as many as 600,000 families. In the same period approximately $1.35 bn is to be directed for support measures for families having a third and subsequent children. By the end of 2021 additional 270,000 places will be created in nurseries, both state-owned and private, with over $2.2 bn allocated for this purpose from national and local budgets over a three-year period.

In the healthcare sector 1590 outpatient clinics and paramedic stations are to be built or renovated in 2019-2020, with the focus on IT technologies making healthcare more accessible even in the most remote regions.

New green technologies will gradually replace oil and diesel fuel with gas and electricity in city transport as well as private cars. By 2025 industrial pollution will be reduced by at least 20%.

Plans are in place to create a cultural-educational regional network, with major hubs operating in Kaliningrad, Kemerovo, Vladivostok and Sevastopol. By combining access to the funds of our leading museums and theatres with extensive educational capacities, they will become the genuine cultural magnets.

For a country as large as Russia, communications are vital. In 2019-2025 60 airports are to be built, expanded or upgraded, including new ones in Khabarovsk, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk. The traffic capacity of the Baikal-Amur and Trans-Siberian railway lines will nearly double. 5G network is already being installed and in a few years it should cover the whole territory of Russia.

The expenses will be significant, of course, but we are prepared for it. First and foremost, they constitute investments in the better life of our citizens. And we can afford it. Despite all these ambitious projects, our budget shows steady surplus. The GDP growth is predicted to exceed 3% in 2021 and surpass the world’s annual rates afterwards. Quite ambitious for today’s Europe.

Being a sovereign and steadily developing state, Russia is ready for cooperation with all countries. This is the essence of our foreign policy.

 Alexander Yakovenko

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Russian Federation to the Court of St.James’s

LATEST EVENTS

23.02.2019 - Statement by First Deputy Permanent Representative Dmitry Polyanskiy at the UN Security Council Meeting on CAR

We would like to thank Special Representative P.Onanga-Anyanga, African Union Commissioner S.Chergui, European External Action Service Managing Director for Africa K.Vervaeke, Permanent Representative of Morocco O.Hilale and Representative of Côte d'Ivoire G.Hipeau for their briefings. Let me express our sincere gratitude to Mr. Parfait Onanga-Anyanga for his work as Head of MINUSCA. Parfait, you have proven to be the man who would not lose temper even in a critical situation. Your contribution to stabilization in CAR can hardly be overestimated. We hope that your expertise and experience will be in demand in the UN system. We wish you every success in your future endeavors. Mm. President,

21.02.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning placing Sergey and Yulia Skripal on a missing person list

Question: How would you comment on the media reports suggesting that Sergey Skripal’s mother has officially requested Russian law enforcement agencies to record her son and granddaughter as missing and initiate a missing person investigation? According to the British side, the UK agencies have not received any official notice from the Russian authorities with regard to placing the Skripals on a missing person list. Answer: We fully understand the natural concern of Elena Skripal with what has happened to her relatives. The situation is exacerbated by a lack of access to the Russian citizens in violation of international law and the bilateral 1965 Consular Convention. In this case we are unable to officially state that Sergey and Yulia are still alive. We are disturbed by the recent media leaks concerning the worsening health of Sergey Skripal, whose track has been lost since the incident on 4 March 2018. As for Yulia, she was seen only once in May 2018 in a video address which was obviously pre-written by the British secret services. All this indicates that both our nationals are being isolated.

20.02.2019 - Comment by the Information and Press Department on the 5th anniversary of the state coup in Ukraine and its consequences

Following the 2014 state coup, which the United States and several other countries openly supported, Ukraine has been falling ever deeper into political chaos, corruption, lawlessness and aggressive nationalism. Over the past five years, Ukraine has been engulfed in violence and crimes committed on political and ideological grounds. Most of these crimes were not followed by appropriate legal action. The case of the snipers who shot people on Maidan has not been objectively investigated, and the tragedy in Odessa in May 2014 has not been solved. Contrary to their declarations of commitment to democracy and human rights and freedoms, the Ukrainian authorities are actually hunting down those whose views differ from the official position. Many independent Ukrainian media outlets and journalists, including editor-in-chief of RIA Novosti Ukraine Kirill Vyshinsky, have been victimised and persecuted.

19.02.2019 - INF TREATY: FACT SHEET

- Full name: Treaty Between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles. - Signed in Washington on 8 December 1987 by General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan. Entered into force on 1 June 1988. - Required destruction of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5500 kilometers, their launchers and associated support structures and support equipment, thus promoting stability and predictability, as well as playing a major role in reformatting the geopolitical landscape in Europe and interstate relations between the key players in this region. - Contained detailed rules on the procedure of missiles elimination and inspections.

19.02.2019 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at the Munich Security Conference, Munich, February 16, 2019

First of all, Wolfgang (Ischinger), thank you for your presentation and your kind words. There is yet another reason why I address [this conference] more often than anyone else: this is because you have kept your post for so long. Today, the situation on the European continent and generally in the Euro-Atlantic region is, certainly, extremely tense. There appear ever more new rifts and the old ones grow deeper. I think that under these circumstances, it is relevant and even timely to turn to the European Home idea, no matter how strange this may sound in the current situation. Many great modern day politicians realised the need for pooling the potentials of absolutely all European states. Let me mention Charles de Gaulle, who put forward the concept of Greater Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, a peaceful Europe without divides or bloc confrontations, which, in his opinion, made Europe “artificial and barren.” Chancellor Helmut Kohl and President Francois Mitterrand also spoke about the importance of the broadest possible partnership with Russia in the name of stability and security.

17.02.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the appearance of the Russian flag on the Salisbury Cathedral

Question: How would you comment on the reports by the British media that on Sunday morning someone hoisted a Russian flag on the scaffolding around the Salisbury Cathedral? Answer: We saw these reports, but we do not have any official information on them. If the reports of hoisting a Russian flag are true, then it all looks to us like a well-staged provocation.

16.02.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning the interview by Dawn Sturgess's parents

Question: The Guardian has published an interview with the parents of the British citizen Dawn Sturgess, who died in July last year allegedly from “Novichok” poisoning. They put the blame for the non-transparent investigation on the UK government. How would you comment on their statements? Answer: We have studied carefully the interview and fully agree with Dawn Sturgess's family. Numerous questions regarding the tragedy in Amesbury remain unanswered, the British authorities continue to conceal the circumstances of that incident. We fully understand the fair indignation Dawn Sturgess's relatives feel.

14.02.2019 - Embassy Press Officer’s reply to a media question concerning recent appeals of the British officials to impose new sanctions against Russia

Question: How would you comment on the recent statements by the British officials calling upon their European partners to impose new sanctions against Russia over the incident in the Kerch Strait last year? Answer: We have not been surprised with such an active UK’s approach. Those statements have clearly shown the anti-Russian essence of the current Conservative government’s policy. British officials are doing their utmost to avoid conducting a normal intergovernmental dialogue with Russia, while using only the language of ultimatums and sanctions.

13.02.2019 - Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at the UN Security Council Briefing on Ukraine

Mr. President, Above all, let me thank today’s briefers: Mr. M.Jenča, Mm. U.Müller, Mr. E.Apakan and Mr. M.Sajdik. We have initiated this meeting in order to discuss the course of implementation of “Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements” – the most important document for the settlement of Ukraine’s internal crisis. It was signed 4 years ago, on 12 February 2015 by the representatives of OSCE, Ukraine, Russia, DPR and LPR.

11.02.2019 - Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at UN Security Council meeting on the situation in Kosovo

Thank you, Mr. President, Above all, we would like to thank our colleagues from Equatorial Guinea for their principal position and for inclusion of a meeting on Kosovo in the Council’s agenda for February in order to discuss the situation in the Province and the report by Secretary-General of 31 January on the implementation of UNSC resolution 1244. We welcome the participation of Mr. Ivica Dačić, First Deputy Prime-Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Serbia. Distinguished Minister, we share the profound concerns about the situation in Kosovo that you talked about.

all messages 2012 @ The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia

[ruminativerabbi]

Defending Dr. King’s Legacy

It’s hard to imagine anyone arguing with the notion that freedom of the press will always be among the most basic features of life in any democratic state. And, indeed, ever since December 15, 1791, when the first ten amendments to the Constitution were formally adopted, this has been true with respect to our American republic not merely philosophically but legally as well. That, surely, is as it should be. But, just as freedom of the press exists specifically to permit the publication of even the least popular ideas, so do citizens have the parallel right—perhaps even the obligation—to respond vigorously to published essays rooted in ignorance, fantasy, and a prejudicial worldview. And it is with that thought in mind that I wish to respond to a truly outrageous op-end piece about Israel—and, more precisely, American support for Israel—published in the New York Times last Sunday in which the author appears to have no understanding of ancient or modern history, no sympathy for any of Israel’s security needs, no ability critically to evaluate even the most baseless Palestinian claims about the history of the land, and no interest even in getting the facts straight.  

The author, Michelle Alexander, is formally employed as an opinion columnist at the Times. And her essay, published on Martin Luther King weekend, presented itself as the result of the author’s brave decision finally “to break the silence” regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It’s hard to imagine what silence the author imagines she has boldly broken by daring to criticize Israel viciously and in print—just lately the number of opinion pieces hostile to Israel published by her own newspaper gives lie to that notion easily. Nor was there anything at all new or groundbreaking in her essay, which mostly just parroted the same propagandistic claptrap the enemies of Israel cite regularly to justify their anti-Israel stance. But most outrageous of all was the suggestion that she was somehow keeping faith with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy by finding the courage to speak out against Israel. That last point, then, is the first I will address.

I am personally too young to have been present in 1968 when, just a week before his horrific death, Dr. King came to the annual convention of the Rabbinical Assembly, my own professional organization, and spoke these words:

Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all of our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity and the right to use whatever sea lanes it needs. I see Israel, and never mind saying it, as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.

Those were his final remarks about Israel, never revised or updated. How could he have? He was dead a week later! And, with his horrific end, his unqualified support for the right of Israel to defend itself against its enemies entered history as part of his formidable legacy, a legacy that touched on many areas of American domestic and foreign policy and not solely on the questions related to civil rights, non-violent protest, and race relations for which he is justifiably the most famous.

In her essay, Alexander broke no new ground. She seemed ignorant about Israel—about its history, its foreign policy, its long history of one-sided overtures to the Palestinians, its withdrawal from Gaza, and the restrained way it has responded not to dozens or hundreds but thousands of separate acts of terror aimed specifically at the civilian population over these last years alone—and neither did she seem to know, or care, how it was that Israel came to control the West Bank in the first place. But when boiled down to its basics, she seemed unable to move past her sense that the Jews who founded the State of Israel were colonialist interlopers from Europe who were intent on doing to the indigenous Arab population what the Belgians in that same era were attempting to do to the Congolese, the British to the Indians, and the French to the Algerians: seize other people’s land and then ignore the presence of those people other than when it came to subduing them and forcing them to serve their new masters. As I read it, that was the core of her argument.

The fact that the Palestinians have refused offer after offer to negotiate a fair, just peace seems to be unknown to her. Perhaps more to the point, the fact that there is nothing at all preventing the Palestinian leadership from doing what they should have done in 1947 and finally declaring a Palestinian State, then negotiating its borders with the neighbors and getting down to the business of nation building—this too seems not to have occurred to Alexander, who finds it courageous to support the notion of boycotting Israel (and who is paradoxically appalled by the publication of the names of individuals who support the BDS movement, although you would think she would be proud for their names—and her own name—to be known widely in that context). And she certainly has no interest in responding thoughtfully (or at all) to the inconvenient fact that the Arabs, hardly the indigenes, came to the Land of Israel in a series of invasions in the seventh century CE in the course of which they successfully wrested control of the land from its then Byzantine masters. (Nor was the Land of Israel the sole target of the Caliph Umar and his hordes back in the day: the Arab armies, true colonialists precisely in the style of the age of imperialism, also overran modern-day Turkey, Cyprus, Armenia, and most of Northern Africa.) On the other hand, there is every imaginable kind of evidence—literary, archeological, genetic, epigraphical, and numismatic—to support the argument that the ancestors of today’s Jewish people were present in the land in hoariest antiquity and have remained present, one way or the other, ever since. But of that truth, Alexander has nothing at all to say.

It’s true that there have been Arabs living in the Land of Israel for many centuries. But the detail Alexander passes quickly by is precisely that there is nothing at all preventing the outcome she clearly dreams to see: the establishment of a Palestinian state in the Middle East. If they will it to happen, then it will surely be no dream! (I’ve lost track of how many nations already recognize the non-existent State of Palestine as though it were an actual political entity.) Yet all the misery of the Palestinians, so Michelle Alexander, is exclusively the fault of Israel. The Jordanians, who ruled over the West Bank for nineteen years and kept the Palestinians interned in refugee camps, are not mentioned. The extraordinary acts of violence directed against Israel—the tens of thousands of missiles fired at civilian towns and villages within Israel from Gaza, for example—these too are left unreferenced. Perhaps the author considers each of those missiles to constitute a valid expression of political rage. But I would only begrudgingly respect her right such an opinion if she were to write similarly about the people who brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11—that they weren’t terrorists or violent miscreants, just brave martyrs making a searing political statement.  

Alexander makes much of the fact that Martin Luther King apparently cancelled plans to travel to Israel after the Six Day War in 1967. She cites a phone call—but without saying to whom it was made or where recorded—according to which King based his decision on the fear that the Arab world would surely interpret his visit as an indication that he supported everything Israel did to win the war. That King had misgivings about this or that aspect of Israeli military or foreign policy is hardly a strong point—I myself  harbor grave misgivings about many Israeli policies, including both domestic and non-domestic ones—but infinitely more worth citing are Reverend King’s remarks the following fall at Harvard. Some of the students with whom he was dining began to criticize Zionism itself as a political philosophy, to which criticism King responded by asserting that to repudiate the value or validity of Zionism as a valid political movement is, almost by definition, to embrace anti-Semitism: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!” And King’s final statement about Israel, cited above, certainly reads clearly enough for me!

To take advantage of the freedom of the press guaranteed by the Constitution implies a certain level of responsibility to the facts. To be unaware that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 is possibly merely to be uninformed and lazy in one’s research. To write about the West Bank as though it were the site of a formerly independent Palestinian state now occupied by Israeli aggressors is either to be willfully biased or abysmally ill informed. But to write about Israeli checkpoints designed to keep terrorists from entering Israel without as much as nodding to the reason Israelis might reasonably and fully rationally fear a resurgence of violence directed specifically against the civilian population—that crosses the line from ignorance and poor preparation into the terrain of anti-Semitic rhetoric that finds the notion of Jewish people doing what it takes to defend themselves against their would-be murderers repulsive…or, at the very least, morally suspect.

I have been a subscriber to the New York Times forever. My parents were also subscribers. In my boyhood home, the phrase “the paper” invariably referenced The Times. (If my father meant The Daily Mirror or The Post, he said so. But “the” paper without further qualification was The Times.) Much of what I grew up knowing about the world and thinking about the world came directly from its editorial and, eventually, its op-ed pages; that the writing in “the” paper was presumed unbiased, informed, and honest went without saying. That, however, was then. And this is now. I haven’t cancelled my subscription. Not yet, at any rate. And I really do believe that people should be free to express even the least popular views in print without fear of reprisal. But when someone crosses the line from harsh criticism of Israel to propose that there is something reprehensible about Israel defending itself vigorously against its enemies—that is where I stop reading and try to calm down by looking at the obituaries or the crossword puzzle instead.

[classyfoxdestiny]

Is it legal to require vaccinations to travel? Yes, say experts

Is it legal to require vaccinations to travel? Yes, say experts

Vaccine mandates trickled into the U.S. travel sphere last winter, picked up steam in the spring and hit fever pitch over the summer.

Vaccine shots are now necessary to eat in cafes in France, to see a Broadway show in New York City and soon, to fly commercially in Canada.

Though mandates were expected for cruises and international travel, the pace and scope of activities that they now cover —  from booking group tours to staying in hotels —  has surprised industry experts.

“It has been interesting to watch the striking acceleration of vaccine mandates,” said Harry Nelson, founder of health-care law firm Nelson Hardiman.

He said that while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s full approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine last month has prompted some mandates, they’re also being “driven by increasingly supportive public opinion of the vaccinated majority.”

Are vaccine mandates legal?

Yes, said Lawrence O. Gostin, professor at Georgetown Law and the faculty director of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.

“Businesses have full power to require reasonable safety standards for customers,” he told CNBC. “Just as many businesses have required masking, they could also ask for proof of vaccination.”

That’s true whether mandates come from private businesses or government-owned attractions, such as the Grand Canyon or tours at the White House, he said.

We felt strongly that it was the right thing to do, and sometimes doing the right thing is hard.

Kelly Sanders

senior vice president of operations, Highgate Hawaii

“For some high-risk businesses, such as cruise lines and hotels, it is very much in their economic interests to make their customers feel safe and secure — they have every right to do so,” said Gostin. “Similarly, President Biden, who oversees federal properties, could require proof of vaccination for entry to… national parks and federal buildings.”   

Nelson agrees, adding that there is a long history of courts upholding vaccine mandates, though those have mostly been in the context of school requirements.

“I expect that, for the most part, the vaccine mandates will stand up,” he said.

Vaccine exemptions

The next great debate could be the diluting effect that vaccine exemptions may have on vaccine mandates.

Gostin said public and private companies “probably have to allow both medical and religious exemptions” but they can be “narrow and hard to get.”

United Airlines seems to be taking that approach. Staff granted religious exemptions to the airline’s recently-announced workforce vaccine mandate will be placed on temporary unpaid leave starting next month.  

Unvaccinated tourists who travel to New York City can walk down the streets near Broadway, but they can’t attend shows without an exemption.

Spencer Platt | Getty Images News | Getty Images

The government has an “easy case” to refuse religious exemptions for vaccines against infectious disease, wrote Douglas Laycock, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, in an article published last week on Australia-based news site The Conversation.  

“Even when religious objections are sincere, the government has a compelling interest in overriding them and insisting that everyone be vaccinated,” he wrote. “And that overrides any claim under state or federal constitutions or religious liberty legislation.” 

As for how far challenges to vaccine mandates can go, Laycock wrote: “Unless governments mandating vaccines do not defend their rules, or the Supreme Court changes the law, the answer is likely, ‘Not far.'”

Nelson said he believes a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court would welcome the opportunity to articulate broader personal religious freedoms if given the chance.

What’s next?

Expect more companies to announce vaccine mandates, said Nelson, especially after vaccines are approved by the FDA for kids aged 5-12, and eventually those even younger.

Hotels have been slow to enter the vaccine mandate fray, but that’s starting to change. Elite Island Resorts, which operates nine resorts in the Caribbean, and Highgate Hawaii, which operates seven hotels in Hawaii, both announced mandatory vaccine policies, as have others.

“We felt strongly that it was the right thing to do, and sometimes doing the right thing is hard,” said Kelly Sanders, senior vice president of operations for Highgate Hawaii. “I expect that more (hotels) will eventually follow.”

Starting Oct. 15, guests aged 12 and older must be vaccinated to stay at Highgate Hawaii’s ‘Alohilani Resort Waikiki Beach.

Courtesy of ‘Alohilani Resort Waikiki Beach

Flights may be next, if airlines follow the lead of Qantas’ CEO Alan Joyce, who indicated earlier this month that passengers will be required to be vaccinated on its international flights.  

U.S. officials are debating whether to require vaccinations to fly both domestically and internationally, as reported last week by The Washington Post. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the White House’s chief medical advisor, said this month he would likely support a vaccine mandate for air travel.

Georgetown’s Gostin said he could foresee President Biden issuing a vaccine mandate for interstate or international travel, similar to the one his administration announced earlier this week for foreigners traveling into the U.S.

“But airlines themselves could also set this requirement,” said.  

To date, no major U.S. airline has announced such a policy.

Vaccine passports

So-called “vaccine passports” may be on the horizon too, said Nelson, as interest increases for reliable proof of vaccination status.

“I think we are going to see them throughout the hospitality and entertainment industry,” he said.

From Sept. 13, guests staying at New York City’s Equinox Hotel must be vaccinated.

Jeenah Moon | Bloomberg | Getty Images

The White House last April ruled out plans to create a federal vaccine passport, but Nelson said he feels they are more likely to show up in “blue” states given “the trend of ‘red’ state hostility to the concept.”  

“My sense is that the government is counting on the fact that as more ambivalent and reluctant people are vaccinated, the stronger the public pressure will be,” he said. “New measures, coupled with fear over hospitalization and mortality rates among the unvaccinated, are likely to lead to even more support for more restrictions.”

Source link

[dipulb3]

Polls say Americans report record low opinions of China. Are the surveys measuring racism?

New Post has been published on https://appradab.com/polls-say-americans-report-record-low-opinions-of-china-are-the-surveys-measuring-racism/

Polls say Americans report record low opinions of China. Are the surveys measuring racism?

In fact, if you go by the polls, they’ve never liked it less.

When asked how they felt toward China, the vast majority of Americans surveyed required no further detail before giving definitive answers like “very cold” and “very unfavorable,” according to results published by Gallup and Pew, two leading public opinion research groups, this month.

In a national context that sees Asian Americans harassed and assaulted because of their ethnicity, and where then President Donald Trump’s use of the term “Chinese virus” was linked to increases in racist online rhetoric, some observers are wishing that the questions Americans ask to understand themselves allow for more nuance.

“It’s not possible to treat China like this one, coherent thing. As if you can hold positive or negative attitudes towards the government, all the people, the culture — and that all sticks together as one single opinion,” said Tobita Chow, director of Justice is Global. Across the US media spectrum, China is a subject of constant interest. It is depicted as partner, competitor, and enemy, but it’s never ignored.

In this climate, Chenchen Zhang, lecturer of Politics and International Relations at Queen’s University Belfast, says the “feeling thermometer” questions used in surveys about China are different. ​Mainstream pollsters “wouldn’t ask Americans this question about Denmark or Italy, because no one would know who the prime ministers there are, or what the policies of the ruling parties are,” she said.

“And (Americans) don’t know the Chinese policies either, but they know that there is a Communist party, and it’s not good. I think that makes opinion surveys about China different from other nations,” Zhang said.

“There’s a lot of pressure and encouragement for people to engage in thinking about China that’s either black or white; good or evil. It is exceptionally hard to get people to think of China in a more nuanced way,” Chow said. “It’s worth asking: are there different ways we can check people’s attitudes?”

China as a monolith

Whether it’s the pernicious model minority myth or the alarming spike in xenophobic language being used to harass people of Asian descent, one of the defining features of the racism Asian Americans experience is being treated as a monolith, community advocates say.

And with the outsized presence of China in the American imagination, it is a frustratingly common experience for people who have nothing to do with China to be presumed “Chinese” on the basis of their name or appearance. Loyalties are questioned. Crude stereotypes are assumed.

And among those who pay close attention to the politics and culture of China, the extremes can be dizzying in a way that is difficult to quantify in a single word or “temperature.”

Chow says important distinctions get lost in the possible survey answers of “favorable” and “unfavorable.”

“What do you think about the state of the country right now, and what do you wish for the country? I have an unfavorable view about a lot of what is happening in US society right now, but at the same time I want things to get better for the US and everyone in it. I suspect that ‘unfavorability’ applied to China fails to make this distinction, and runs these things together: thinking that the other country has a lot of problems right now and wanting things to go poorly for them in the future.”

Decades in use, historic findings

But academics who study and design polls say that these questions offer valuable insight into how opinions have changed over time.

“The reason we keep using these feeling thermometer questions is because they’ve been asked for so long,” said Samara Klar, a political scientist at the University of Arizona.

“There’s a trade-off,” Klar says, “if you change the question, then you lose the time series, and you can’t really compare it to any previous surveys. So it is really valuable to have them, partially because we’ve been asking them for decades. And if you’re seeing these trends become more and more negative, that’s definitely telling you something.”

In the year of the coronavirus pandemic, these trends have reached historically negative levels.

In the survey conducted by Ipsos – KnowledgePanel for the Chicago Council in July 2020, Americans responded with the lowest “temperature” they’d reported since the council began asking the question in 1978.

In a Gallup poll conducted early last month, 79% of Americans surveyed reported an unfavorable view of China. It was by far the highest percentage Gallup had reported since September 1979.

In a Pew survey also from ​last summer, 42% of Americans surveyed reported a “very unfavorable” opinion of China. It was by far the highest percentage Pew had observed since it began asking the question in the spring of 2005.

These findings were reported widely, often as little more than splashy headlines and tweets.

Feelings about the self and the other

To Klar, the historically negative results may be a function, in part, of the way the question was asked.

Klar does not study China, or Americans’ opinions of it. But she does use survey research to understand how Americans think about partisan politics at home, and she sees some relevant parallels in the ways “feeling thermometer” questions are asked of Democrats and Republicans.

“What survey researchers have found, over the last several decades, is that people feel about the same towards their own party that they always have, but they feel more and more negative towards the other party. And this has led to this phenomenon that political scientists call affective polarization, which means people increasingly dislike members of the other party. And people are really concerned about this,” Klar said.

But in thinking about the “other” in the question, Klar and her colleagues have found that when Americans give especially negative answers, they are often thinking, specifically, about the elites of the other party.

Perhaps anticipating the public’s curiosity, Pew published a companion piece to its latest survey, explaining what Americans were thinking about when they reported their views of “China.” Similar to Klar’s observation about broad questions causing respondents to imagine elites when they answer, Pew reported that “Americans rarely brought up the Chinese people or the country’s long history and culture in their responses. Instead, they focused primarily on the Chinese government.”

On the subject of the Chinese government, Americans’ views are especially negative about Chinese president Xi Jinping. Forty-three percent told Pew they had “no confidence at all” in Xi to “do the right thing regarding world affairs.”

Klar says Americans polled on China might respond differently if asked narrower questions, like they do when polled on domestic partisan issues.

“When we say, ‘ok, now I want you to think about the people who voted for them, or people who identify with the other party.’ Then we find significantly warmer reports. So essentially, what this means is that people have very negative feelings towards the institution of (the other party) or the elites of the (other party), or maybe even that party as an abstract concept, but when we hone in on the question of ordinary voters, they actually feel quite warm towards them. Which suggests that we do tend to be colder in the abstract than we are when it comes to a person down the street.”

Risks of misinterpretation

So what if Americans’ now-famous negativity toward China is overstated?

Klar notes from her own research that “the more people think that Republicans and Democrats are polarized on issues where they’re not actually that polarized, the more they express negative feelings toward ​members of the other group, risking creation of a vicious cycle.

Stated more broadly, “if we overstate hostility towards out groups, it tends to exacerbate subsequent hostility toward those groups,” Klar said.

But as Asian Americans around the country are saying loud and clear, the racialized hostility they experience is hardly overstated.

Klar sees the risk. “If we understate discrimination, then we are essentially dismissing a really important crisis in our country, which is that a non-White minority is being discriminated against,” she said.

Justin McCarthy, a spokesperson for Gallup, notes that their polls have measured large fluctuations in public opinion over the last four decades. But previous spikes in American antipathy for China have not corresponded to increased reports of xenophobic attacks against Asian Americans like this past year.

Diversity in design

David Wilson, a professor of political science and international relations at the University of Delaware, says “feeling thermometer” questions can be effective tools for measuring a society’s views, and may even help pollsters identify the kinds of views that respondents may be reluctant to admit openly.

The American public’s affect, or mood, about China, is a useful data point for researchers, Wilson says. In combination with data from other questions on things like specific foreign policy initiatives, researchers can gain valuable insight into the public’s behavior.

But Wilson notes that what the general public considers to be an appropriate survey question can change over time. So can the makeup of that public, itself.

Asian Americans are the fastest-growing racial group in the United States, according to Pew, and their voices have been reflected in these polls in increasing numbers. But according to Wilson, there has been relatively little focus in the survey design world on how Asian Americans perceive questions. “It’s a legitimate concern to know how they’re interpreting the questions,” he said.

“Most questions have been standardized on White Americans. America is probably the leading country in terms of surveys and public opinion work, and, on average, the overwhelming majority of every sample is White people. So most of the questions we’ve been tracking over time just disregard the racial sensitivities of other groups,” Wilson said.

How can researchers accommodate for the ways different people may perceive a question?

For me, it’s diversifying the survey room so you can have the tough conversations with each other, and vet the survey. Vet the conversation before you give it to the public,” he said, about his hopes for the industry as a whole.

The view from the survey room

Dina Smeltz is a senior fellow for public opinion and foreign policy at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and a member of the team that designed their October 2020 survey. She says the survey’s questions offer an important way “to gauge the ups and downs” of a relationship like the one between the US and China, and the public’s reactions to it.

“I don’t think this is normalizing animus, it is measuring a snapshot of public opinion at a particular point in time. The thermometer is an especially neutral way to ask about a country,” she said.

But she notes that there can be big differences between views of a country and views of its people.

“In a perfect world, research organizations would be able to ask a full range of questions about the Chinese government, the Chinese economy, the positives they associate with China, the negatives they associate with China, and then move on to ask about the Chinese people, the positives and negatives associated with the Chinese people, and from there break it down even further,” Smeltz said.

“If we had the room and the budget to ask deeper questions about various groups of people within China, those indicators would, of course, add a richer understanding of American attitudes toward China and the Chinese people. Hopefully we will be funded to do that in the future.”

McCarthy defends his organization’s current approach. “At Gallup we are fortunate to have powerful tools at our disposal to accurately measure public opinion, and to have trends that provide unparalleled context for current attitudes. It is our responsibility to maintain these trends and to provide expert analysis explaining them. Selectively choosing not to measure certain things out of fear of how the results may be misinterpreted or misused would be a dangerous and slippery slope. Rather, we would encourage all who want to improve society to look to reliable data like Gallup’s to understand public attitudes and work from there to press for policy or societal changes as needed.”

Laura Silver, senior researcher at Pew, said “we agree that it’s important to be clear what people are thinking about when they respond to questions like our feeling thermometers,” and noted that, this year, Pew asked a question to try to uncover that.

“Our results show that when Americans described what they thought about China, they rarely brought up the Chinese people or the country’s long history and culture in their responses. Instead, they focused primarily on the Chinese government — including its policies or how it behaves internationally — as well as its economy.”

[compacflt]

Hi, big fan of your fics. I've just found your Tumblr and binged everything Icemav-related. When reading about Icemav's political beliefs, I've gotten curious. Does Bradley share the same political beliefs as Ice (and Mav)? Does being raised by them or them pulling his papers influence how he votes? Or there are other factors in the play (e.g. generations, social media)? How about Jake and the other Daggers? How does this young generation of the Navy perceive politics (elections, gender, etc.)? My apologies for bombarding you with questions. But as a non-American, American politics have always been something we must pay attention to. I've seen many interesting interpretations on Tumblr but it feels more or less wistful than realistic, but I might be wrong (again not an American) so I would love to see your perspective on this. Thank you.

a good politics roundup post before i leave this blog

icemav & their conservatism: here, here, here

ice’s NECESSARY conservatism as commander of the pacific fleet (i.e. officers who are most likely to get promoted to the highest ranks do NOT break the service line when it comes to domestic politics, so by necessity ice would’ve had to keep his mouth shut, he Cannot be both a four-star and a revolutionary, like he just can’t; and being a revolutionary is otherwise antithetical to his character anyway): here, here.

and the original “ice & mav politics post” which is being updated here: here

I’ve gone back and forth on everyones politics over the last year of me being involved with these characters, but let me just tell you where I’ve ended up headcanoning them politically, if ur interested

ice: reagan democrat. “educated moderate” who was more right-leaning pre-9/11. now just a regular ol liberal (did you SEE those gay little round glasses in tgm? no way this guy isn’t a straight-up lib) with absolutely no strong feelings about most domestic politics besides “fascism bad”. Has some foreign policy opinions that areeeee questionable at best, like all members of the military elite (hangman voice: DO NOT ASK ICEMAN ABOUT CHINA. WORST MISTAKE OF MY LIFE). foreign policy neoliberal favoring the dovish side of the spectrum. A force conservator (“let’s save our military assets [read: my boyfriend maverick 🥺] for when we really need them, not for any old conflict. the deterring specter of the American war machine should outweigh the risk of underperforming”). He’s in favor of marriage equality of course, but treats it like a privilege and not a right. would be sad/upset if it got repealed but wouldn’t necessarily fight for it. “well at least my marriage will always be legal in california so i just won’t leave, problem solved.” Normie median Biden voter.

mav: political wildcard tbh. original 1986 mav is DEFINITELY right-leaning (i think i’ve written elsewhere, “he fully believes bill clinton is an affront to god”). i get young republican vibes from him. Full on patriotic (but dispassionate) 1980s reaganite anti-commie neoconservative. but after the 2010s i am very confused tbh. Tom cruise’s political aura is an insanely confusing one. idk. No matter what, Mav has some Hot Takes that a.) can immediately be shot down by ice using Facts and Logic at any time and b.) are not strictly partisan. He’s registered democrat just to support marriage equality (his marriage is his top priority but he doesn’t care about Other gays’ marriages, only his own), doesn’t care about any of the party’s other lines. Votes however ice tells him to. I get real “kind clueless libertarian” vibes from 2022 maverick tbh. Especially with the “isolating himself in a hangar in the middle of the mojave desert.” that has a political connotation to it for sure. bro just does whatever he wants out there

also, ice & mav live in San Diego, which… while in blue/democrat leaning California…is famously a bastion of right-wingers & has a hitler particle level off the charts… (sorry its not my favorite place in the world). That’s why they’re both continually so disgusted by San Francisco (a metonym for effete liberal homosexuality). Theyre from San Diego, hatred of SF & liberal SF politics is kinda par for the course down there.

Bradley: as u will see in the extras i definitely hc Bradley as an activist, but because he’s… in the navy and also like in his 30s… It’s not college campus activism, it’s just “things all of us in the left wing can agree upon” activism. so, like, BLM or pride, etc. He’s an “in this house we believe” yard sign liberal. He is 38 years old. hes a solid millennial so not politically hip with the kids (me)

Bradley & ice/mav disagree on the VISIBILITY of politics. Ice & mav, who did live through the vietnam era draft/near-dissolution of American society in the 60s and 70s, are not in favor of possibly losing their job/honor they have fought and killed for, for the sake of a political statement. And they believe their relationship IS a political statement, whereas Bradley would rather encourage them to treat their relationship like, I don’t know, a relationship that has a right to exist independent of politics!

Jake and the other daggers: idk. i don’t really give a shit about the daggers sorry. They r blank slates 2 me. jake especially is canonically frat-boy sexist in a way that gives me the heebs, much like original 1986 maverick and ice. But the navy tends to be the most left-wing (or thought of as left wing in common thought) service of the military, if that helps. But it is also the most traditional service of the military, and by traditional I mean BRITISH!!!! 🇬🇧💂there’s so much pomp and circumstance and hoity-toitiness that comes from the navy’s origins in the Royal Navy. A lot of sticking to outdated tradition in the very fabric of the navy itself, while the navy’s enlisted demographics shift younger and more left-wing/“revolutionary…” some interesting conflicts there. Like that one sailor who got blasted by multiple congressmen on social media for (with permission!) reading a poem about their queer identity on the USS Gerald ford’s intercom a few months back, if I remember correctly. Hoo boy the Takes that day were wild. Younger Americans tend to be more liberal but YMMV with officers, who are by nature trying to uphold outdated traditions of the navy for the sake of keeping the navy a unified service

i am of course writing carole as a christian republican who has gay friends and a gay kid not by choice but by the Grace of God

[back-and-totheleft]

Stone, cold sober

Re-telling the story of September 11 with a measured hand and lightness of touch hithertoo unhinted at, director Oliver Stone proves a more serious thinker than his paranoia-soaked canon would suggest. Here, he explains how his experiences as a soldier in Vietnam framed his outlook on life and art.

The introductory handshake comes with an additional squeeze of the wrist and a roguish smile.

“You’re Irish. I can tell.”

No. Your correspondent hasn’t been transported back to a disco in the 1970s. Instead, she’s in New York’s Regency Hotel meeting Oliver Stone. That twinkling opening gambit has brought about a Proustian rush of wayward tabloid headlines. I remember that idiotic book on the making of Natural Born Killers, with its scurrilous tales of loose ladies, psilocybin mushrooms and cocaine abuse. I recall that story about the director commandeering the Warners corporate jet to do peyote in the Mexican desert while making The Doors. I remember too how the set of Alexander reputedly became an extravagant saturnalia. Sure enough, I can effortlessly picture this man partying down with Colin Farrell, a duel study in swaggering Dionysian charm.

Though Stone insists his appetite for debauchery has been greatly exaggerated, he’s always owned up to unruly habits. Yes, he does have a fondness for marijuana dating back to time spent on the frontline in Vietnam. He has also ‘expanded his consciousness’ with the occasional psychedelic. But driving offences from last year and 1999 have, he claims, more to do with pre-diabetic medication unwisely knocked back with alcohol than exotic marching powders.

Still, it’s an impressively scandalous record for a man of his years. Stone is 60 now, though you’d say he were a decade younger if you suddenly spied him on the street. In person he’s imperturbably casual, far more relaxed than the ‘madman’ headlines might lead one to suppose. His glowing tan is offset by a bright yellow polo shirt and he sits way, way back in his chair holding your gaze all the while.

Accommodating and easy in his manner, you’d be hard-pressed to identify this individual as Oliver Stone – Controversial Filmmaker. That is, nevertheless, to whom we speak. Stone boasts a fearsomely uncompromising reputation as a screenwriter and director. Throughout the ‘80s when the post-classical frisson of counter-cultural Hollywood had fizzled and poachers died off or turned gamekeeper, only Stone kept the faith, authoring politically conscious cinema at a time when the Academy was honouring Driving Miss Daisy.

His screenplay for rapper’s favourite Scarface set the frenzied pace and ultra-violent tone that would later characterise his visual style. But Stone was too engaged with the world to become the new Brian De Palma. Salvador, his first major film as director, probed the gulf between the ideals of American foreign policy and realpolitik. Platoon, Wall Street, JFK and Nixon would further confirm his interest in micro and macro conspiracies and establish him as an outlaw auteur.

Though he’s now rueful about being stereotyped or “pinned like a butterfly��, he was a good sport about it, appearing as a conspiracy nut in Dave and Wild Palms.

“You know, I’ve never really regarded myself as a political filmmaker”, he tells me. “I consider myself a dramatist. I always get involved with people more than the politics. With the movie JFK, for example, the book by Jim Garrison had a lot of theory. I was more interested in making him part of that story. And Oswald fascinated me. If you watch that film it is really a trail of people played by great actors. Nixon, despite the whiff of conspiracy, is truly a psychological portrait of a man. Many people in the right wing thought it would be a hatchet job but I really made him apathetic. I refuse to be pigeon holed. I am not a political guy. I don’t go to rallies. I am not an activist. I don’t have the time because I’m busy being a writer.”

He may deny the role of agitator, but his opinions, both off and onscreen suggest otherwise. His most recent work in the documentary sector includes Persona Non Grata, an examination of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and two features about Cuban president Fidel Castro, Comandante and Looking for Fidel. (Stone has described himself as a friend and an admirer.)

He has, before now, referred to the events of September 11th as a ‘revolt’ and expressed an interest in the work of Richard Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism advisor whose book Against All Enemies accuses the Bush administration of ignoring the al-Qaeda threat, then linking the group to Iraq, contrary to all evidence.

“We Vietnam vets, in particular, found it very difficult”, says Stone. “We had the backing of the world in Afghanistan. We were rounding up the main suspects. Then we go into Iraq with no support. Militarily, it was stupid. It was overreaching. And any American who travels can tell you how the rest of the world is resentful. What the hell are we doing in Iraq when the enemy was 4000 al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan?”

When it was announced last summer that Stone would direct World Trade Centre, a film focusing on ‘first response’ police officers trapped by the Twin Towers collapse, many eyebrows were raised. “To allow this poisoned and deranged mind… (to recreate 9/11) in the likeness of his vile fantasies is beyond obscene,” raged one conservative commentator. But World Trade Center, it transpires, is Stone’s least obvious work even by his own consistently innovative standards. The towers do not fall back and to the left. There is no grand plot or secret ruling elite. “This is not a political film in any sense”, insists Stone. “It harks back to Platoon in that respect. In Vietnam, we didn’t sit around talking about LBJ. And the truth is, I don’t think we can say for sure what happened during 9/11. We spent more investigating Bill Clinton’s blowjobs than the destruction of the World Trade Centre. Whatever was going on in the background, if you look at the forest through the trees, it seems to me that what has happened since is far worse than what happened that day. So the politics and conspiracies behind that day, whatever they may be, are not as relevant as where we are now.” Completely eschewing polemic, the movie instead offers a heartfelt portrait of ordinary fellows on the front line. Stone’s traditional constituency are, needless to say, horrified, and assorted doublespeak statements have been issued attacking World Trade Center as “non-conspiratorial lies.”

John Conner, a leading voice in the Christian branch of the 9/11 Truth Movement, went so far as to ask the following– “Was Stone used by the Illuminati as an unknowing pawn to whitewash the 9/11 conspiracy theories to the masses? Was he approached with the project and coerced into a commitment to occupy his time in attempts to thwart any other 9/11 angle from being used? Is Stone a pawn in the game? Perhaps Stone didn’t know at the time, and found out too late.”

Oddly, however, like Paul Greengrass’ United 93, Stone’s film has found champions from either end of America’s bipolar political spectrum, often the same folks who had previously dismissed him as a pinko malcontent. L. Brent Bozell III, the president of the conservative Media Research Center and founder of the Parents Television Council — a latter day Mary Whitehouse in trousers — called it “a masterpiece” and sent an e-mail message to 400,000 people saying, “Go see this film.” Cal Thomas, the right-wing syndicated columnist and contributor to The Last Word, wrote that it was “one of the greatest pro-American, pro-family, pro-faith, pro-male, flag-waving, God Bless America films you will ever see.”

“I just felt this was a great story dying to be told,” explains Stone. “It may not be like anything I have done before, but Heaven And Earth wasn’t like anything I had done before. Nor was U Turn or Natural Born Killers. I do jump around and each film is a different style. This isn’t like United 93 which was a brilliant piece of vérité. This is more like a classic John Ford, William Wyler or even Frank Capra film. Against tremendous odds this rescue takes place. This has the traditional Hollywood tropes of emotional connection to four main characters from the working class.

"I would love to bring Hollywood back to that, making films where people actually work for a living, not sit around making things happen with a remote control like that Adam Sandler film. Born On The Fourth Of July was blue-collar. So was Any Given Sunday. Although it’s about elite athletes, it was about work. They had to punish their bodies for their lifestyle.”

A marriage of disaster movie and combat zone drama, World Trade Centre follows Port Authority officers Sergeant John Mc Loughlin (Nicolas Cage) and Will Jimeno (Michael Pena) on a doomed rescue mission into the Twin Towers. On September 12th, they were among the last survivors to be pulled from the rubble. Though the original script by newcomer Andrea Berloff read like a relocation of Beckett’s Endgame, Stone has widened the remit to include the rescuers and the anxious wives at home. As a director noted for working within a decidedly masculine milieu, was it a challenge to represent domesticity, I wonder.

“Oh yes,” he admits. “That was a big challenge. On the surface this is a very simple story of catastrophe and rescue and heroism. But if you go beyond the cliché it is very fresh. Everything the rescuers did was dangerous. We assume rescues just happen, but it is hard work. These men really crawled into places where they thought they would die. It took hours to get them out. I tried to show some of that digging. But an even bigger cliché in these circumstances is the waiting housewife. Actually, it goes further than that. Each of these women died that day. They sit there as the hours pass and the only news is no survivors. You knew no one would come out of there. The buildings were so pancaked. So it was like death for them. I wanted to portray that. I wanted them smelling the sheets from the previous night where they had slept. Again it’s a cliché but the idea was to take the cliché and make it fresh.”

Another subplot concentrates on Staff Sergeant Dave Karnes (Michael Shannon) a Christian marine in Wilton, Connecticut, who watches events on TV and tells his colleagues that America is now at war. Once he decides that God wants him to go to New York he heads to Ground Zero with a flashlight and eventually hears the two cops in the debris. A postscript before the final credits informs us that Kearns has since served two tours of duty in Iraq.

“It’s a remarkable and weird story,” Stone admits. “But that’s how it happened. I also think Kearns represents a significant sector of the American population when he says, ‘We’re going to need some good men to avenge this’. For many people, revenge was their first thought.”

And there you have it. For all the pigeonholing as a conspiracy theorist, facts are of paramount importance to Stone. He spent two-and-a-half years researching JFK. He spent three years immersed in Persian history for the much-maligned Alexander. It was a labour of love and the ill-tempered critical reception seems to have cut to the quick.

“I’m a historical dramatist,” he explains. “I wasn’t a Kennedy assassination junkie at the time, nor was I a 9/11 junkie. But I love the past. It hurts when I read someone claiming that I’ve fabricated something. But then you make a film like Alexander and scholars say you have it right, but critics say it’s all wrong.”

Similarly, while Stone has been at pains to represent those involved in the World Trade Centre disaster as faithfully as possible, he has not been able to quell dissent completely. The widow of Dominick Pezzulo – a cop portrayed in the film - has accused Jimeno and McLoughlin of cashing in on the tragedy by selling their story to Paramount. There have also been mutterings about the film being too soon.

“I know,” nods Stone. “But I honestly think it is the right time. The Killing Fields was made five years after those events in Cambodia. During World War II, Hollywood made propaganda films. Casablanca, made in 1941, takes a very anti Nazi position even before we declared war. The Vietnam movies took longer to make, but life goes faster now. I would say to you the consequences of 9/11 are so bad that we better look back now and understand what happened on that day. When you leave it too long, events become mythologized. Watching Pearl Harbor, you’d think we won that battle. This is the epicentre of 9/11, but there are many stories that still need to be told.”

Though personal and more modest in scope than the $63 million budget might suggest, the director does hope that his intense focus on McLoughlin and Jimeno has a wider relevance.

“They did not have a clue as to what was happening,” he says. “They knew it was a terrorist attack but there was no discussion of politics. They’re cops. They are far more likely to talk about pop culture, whether it is Starsky And Hutch or GI Jane. It wasn’t Bergman down in that hole.

So I am not claiming this movie will answer all the questions. But let’s say you go to a psychiatrist and all your life you have been repressed because you were raped when you where 14. Perhaps the psychiatrist says, ‘Let’s go back to that day’. They make you remember that day and it changes all the defences you had built up. So perhaps by undoing the screw, the secret at the beginning, you can take some of the armour off.”

The events of 9/11 may be difficult to disentangle, but no more so than the filmmaker himself. Born in New York City to a Jewish father and Catholic mother, William Oliver Stone was raised Episcopalian by way of compromise. His parents divorced after his father, a conservative Republican, conducted various extra-marital affairs with family friends. Young Oliver spent much of his subsequent childhood in splendid isolation between private schools and five star hotels - ‘a cartoonish Little Lord Fauntleroy’ by his own account.

Still, Stone needs neither bullfighting nor marlin fishing to confirm his Hemingwayesque credentials as an artist. He attended Yale and dropped out twice before enlisting to fight as an Infantryman in Vietnam. Mixing with the lower orders and smoking pot soon transformed the spoiled youngster into a military hero. He was wounded twice in action and received the Bronze Star with ”V” device signifying valor for “extraordinary acts of courage under fire,” and the Purple Heart with one Oak Leaf Cluster.

Soon after the war, he was arrested at the US-Mexico border for possession of marijuana. His father bailed him out but the experience served to radicalise him. Later, meeting understandably embittered veterans such as Ron Kovic pushed Stone further to the left.

He has, however, wooed Hollywood despite the often overtly political nature of his films. He won his first Academy Award as the screenwriter of Midnight Express and has been further honoured for directing Platoon and Born On The Fourth Of July.

Now, after World Trade Centre, has attention and lavish praise from the likes of Bill O’Reilly turned his head? Not bloody likely.

“People are people,” he tells me. “I think people have to take care of themselves and their families first. But there are bigger questions now. The ecological movement want us to clean up, but how can that work when there is always the issue of jobs? It’s a very selfish world and avarice triumphs over the green imperative. After Katrina, there was a tremendous outpouring of help. That was also true when the tsunami hit Indonesia. People are very generous in America and there are some very fine Americans. Unfortunately, a lot of them don’t have passports. Most of them don’t know where Iraq is. And a lot think al Qaeda and Iraq are the same thing. There’s a problem with the education levels. American television keeps people trapped. The news is very superficial and mostly filled with advertisements and rapes and murders. If you travel in the country and you stay in the smaller places you find very limited resources. If America spent the same amount of money as we spend on embassies and CIA stations around the world on our major cities with the goal of helping bring those cities to a way of life that was democratic and economically viable, we would have a tremendous success in this country. Instead, we have an international presence and I don’t know if it is worth it. All we are doing is promoting a system which is now suspect all over the world. We have broken our constitution repeatedly since 2001.”

He smiles cynically.

“I don’t think pictures of soldiers pointing their naked dicks in Abu Ghraib has helped us at a local level either.”

He’s still got it.

-Tara Brady, “Stone cold sober,” HotPress, Sept 19 2006 [x]

[neptunecreek]

Beyond Platforms: Private Censorship, Parler, and the Stack

Last week, following riots that saw supporters of President Trump breach and sack parts of the Capitol building, Facebook and Twitter made the decision to give the president the boot. That was notable enough, given that both companies had previously treated the president, like other political leaders, as largely exempt from content moderation rules. Many of the president’s followers responded by moving to Parler. This week, the response has taken a new turn. Infrastructure companies much closer to the bottom of the technical “stack”— including Amazon Web Services (AWS), and Google’s Android and Apple’s iOS app stores—deciding to cut off service not just to an individual but to an entire platform.  Parler has so far struggled to return online, partly through errors of its own making, but also because the lower down the technical stack, the harder it is to find alternatives, or re-implement what capabilities the Internet has taken for granted.

Whatever you think of Parler, these decisions should give you pause. Private companies have strong legal rights under U.S. law to refuse to host or support speech they don’t like. But that refusal carries different risks when a group of companies comes together to ensure that certain speech or speakers are effectively taken offline altogether.

The Free Speech Stack—aka “Free Speech Chokepoints”

To see the implications of censorship choices by deeper stack companies, let’s back up for a minute. As researcher Joan Donovan puts it,“At every level of the tech stack, corporations are placed in positions to make value judgments regarding the legitimacy of content, including who should have access, and when and how.” And the decisions made by companies at varying layers of the stack are bound to have different impacts on free expression.

At the top of the stack are services like Facebook, Reddit, or Twitter, platforms whose decisions about who to serve (or what to allow) are comparatively visible, though still far too opaque to most users.  Their responses can be comparatively targeted to specific users and content and, most importantly, do not cut off as many alternatives. For instance, a discussion forum lies close to the top of the stack: if you are booted from such a platform, there are other venues in which you can exercise your speech. These are the sites and services that all users (both content creators and content consumers) interact with most directly. They are also the places where people think of when they think of the content (i.e.“I saw it on Facebook”). Users are often required to have individual accounts or advantaged if they do. Users may also specifically seek out the sites for their content. The closer to the user end, the more likely it is that sites will have more developed and apparent curatorial and editorial policies and practices—their "signature styles." And users typically have an avenue, flawed as it may be, to communicate directly with the service. 

At the other end of the stack are internet service providers (ISPs), like Comcast or AT&T. Decisions made by companies at this layer of the stack to remove content or users raise greater concerns for free expression, especially when there are few if any competitors. For example, it would be very concerning if the only broadband provider in your area cut you off because they didn’t like what you said online—or what someone else whose name is on the account said. The adage “if you don’t like the rules, go elsewhere” doesn’t work when there is nowhere else to go.

In between are a wide array of intermediaries, such as upstream hosts like AWS, domain name registrars, certificate authorities (such as Let’s Encrypt), content delivery networks (CDNs), payment processors, and email services. EFF has a handy chart of some of those key links between speakers and their audience here. These intermediaries provide the infrastructure for speech and commerce, but many have only the most tangential relationship to their users. Faced with a complaint, takedown will be much easier and cheaper than a nuanced analysis of a given user’s speech, much less the speech that might be hosted by a company that is a user of their services. So these service are more likely to simply cut a user or platform off than do a deeper review. Moreover, in many cases both speakers and audiences will not be aware of the identities of these services and, even if they do, have no independent relationship with them. These services are thus not commonly associated with the speech that passes through them and have no "signature style" to enforce.

Infrastructure Takedowns Are Equally If Not More Likely to Silence Marginalized Voices

We saw a particularly egregious example of an infrastructure takedown just a few months ago, when Zoom made the decision to block a San Francisco State University online academic event featuring prominent activists from Black and South African liberation movements, the advocacy group Jewish Voice for Peace, and controversial figure Leila Khaled—inspiring Facebook and YouTube to follow suit. The decision, which Zoom justified on the basis of Khaled’s alleged ties to a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, was apparently made following external pressure.

Although we have numerous concerns with the manner in which social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter make decisions about speech, we viewed Zoom’s decision differently. Companies like Facebook and YouTube, for good or ill, include content moderation as part of the service they provide. Since the beginning of the pandemic in particular, however, Zoom has been used around the world more like a phone company than a platform. And just as you don’t expect your phone company to start making decisions about who you can call, you don’t expect your conferencing service to start making decisions about who can join your meeting.

Just as you don’t expect your phone company to start making decisions about who you can call, you don’t expect your conferencing service to start making decisions about who can join your meeting.

It is precisely this reason that Amazon’s ad-hoc decision to cut off hosting to social media alternative Parler, in the face of public pressure, should be of concern to anyone worried about how decisions about speech are made in the long run. In some ways, the ejection of Parler is neither a novel, nor a surprising development. Firstly, it is by no means the first instance of moderation at this level of the stack. Prior examples include Amazon denying service to WikiLeaks and the entire nation of Iran. Secondly, the domestic pressure on companies like Amazon to disentangle themselves from Parler was intense, and for good reason. After all, in the days leading up to its removal by Amazon, Parler played host to outrageously violent threats against elected politicians from its verified users, including lawyer L. Lin Wood.

But infrastructure takedowns nonetheless represent a significant departure from the expectations of most users. First, they are cumulative, since all speech on the Internet relies upon multiple infrastructure hosts.  If users have to worry about satisfying not only their host’s terms and conditions but also those of every service in the chain from speaker to audience—even though the actual speaker may not even be aware of all of those services or where they draw the line between hateful and non-hateful speech—many users will simply avoid sharing controversial opinions altogether. They are also less precise. In the past, we’ve seen entire large websites darkened by upstream hosts because of a complaint about a single document posted. More broadly, infrastructure level takedowns move us further toward a thoroughly locked-down, highly monitored web, from which a speaker can be effectively ejected at any time.

Going forward, we are likely to see more cases that look like Zoom’s censorship of an academic panel than we are Amazon cutting off another Parler. Nevertheless, Amazon’s decision highlights core questions of our time: Who should decide what is acceptable speech, and to what degree should companies at the infrastructure layer play a role in censorship?

At EFF, we think the answer is both simple and challenging: wherever possible, users should decide for themselves, and companies at the infrastructure layer should stay well out of it. The firmest, most consistent, approach infrastructure chokepoints can take is to simply refuse to be chokepoints at all. They should act to defend their role as a conduit, rather than a publisher. Just as law and custom developed a norm that we might sue a publisher for defamation, but not the owner of the building the publisher occupies, we are slowly developing norms about responsibility for content online. Companies like Zoom and Amazon have an opportunity to shape those norms—for the better or for the worse.

Internet Policy and Practice Should Be User-Driven, Not Crisis-Driven

It’s easy to say today, in a moment of crisis, that a service like Parler should be shunned. After all, people are using it to organize attacks on the U.S. Capitol and on Congressional leaders, with an expressed goal to undermine the democratic process. But when the crisis has passed, pressure on basic infrastructure, as a tactic, will be re-used, inevitably, against unjustly marginalized speakers and forums. This is not a slippery slope, nor a tentative prediction—we have already seen this happen to groups and communities that have far less power and resources than the President of the United States and the backers of his cause. And this facility for broad censorship will not be lost on foreign governments who wish to silence legitimate dissent either. Now that the world has been reminded that infrastructure can be commandeered to make decisions to control speech, calls for it will increase: and principled objections may fall to the wayside. 

Over the coming weeks, we can expect to see more decisions like these from companies at all layers of the stack. Just today, Facebook removed members of the Ugandan government in advance of Tuesday’s elections in the country, out of concerns for election manipulation. Some of the decisions that these companies make may be well-researched, while others will undoubtedly come as the result of external pressure and at the expense of marginalized groups.

The core problem remains: regardless of whether we agree with an individual decision, these decisions overall have not and will not be made democratically and in line with the requirements of transparency and due process, and instead are made by a handful of individuals, in a handful of companies, most distanced and least visible to the most Internet users. Whether you agree with those decisions or not, you will not be a part of them, nor be privy to their considerations. And unless we dismantle the increasingly centralized chokepoints in our global digital infrastructure, we can anticipate an escalating political battle between political factions and nation states to seize control of their powers.

from Deeplinks https://ift.tt/2MN6tQU

[khalilhumam]

Between restoration and change

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/between-restoration-and-change/

Between restoration and change

By Thomas Wright In many ways, Joe Biden is a known quantity when it comes to foreign policy. He believes in American leadership, the liberal international order, democracy, alliances, treaties, and climate change. He will seek to undo much of what President Donald Trump has wrought—he will quickly rejoin the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, he will try to revive the Iran nuclear deal, and he will work with other nations on combatting COVID-19. But in other ways, Biden is a bit of an enigma. We know he will be different to Trump but will his presidency differ in significant ways from that of former President Barack Obama? Biden has called Saudi Arabia a “pariah state.” Does that portend a significant change in America’s posture in the Middle East? Will he buy into the concept of great power competition with China? Will he be more open to progressive reforms to the global economy? Will he continue Obama’s policy of pushing Europe to spend more on the military even as the pandemic exerts downward pressure on defense budgets? It is difficult to answer these questions because to draw a contrast with Trump, Biden only needs to paint in broad brush strokes. He knows his connection to Barack Obama is an asset, and no political benefit exists in distancing himself from the former president. There may not be much to be learned from the exchanges on foreign policy between the candidates but there is a second parallel debate occurring in plain sight that is revealing. This is the intra-Democratic debate on foreign policy. Sometimes this is caricatured as a debate between progressives (aligned with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) and centrists. That is a small part of it but even more significant is the debate within the centrist camp.

Distinguishing between centrists

Few outside of Washington have paid much attention to the debate among centrists. The progressive left tends to dismiss centrist thinking as unchanging from the Clinton or Obama administrations, but new strands of thought are evident in foreign policy journals, think tank reports, and the work of National Security Action, an umbrella organization established in 2017. Understanding this centrist debate sheds light on how a Biden administration might see the world. It is useful to distinguish between two types of centrists. The first is the Obama baseline—the worldview articulated by the Obama administration in its final years. It involves a balanced approach to China and a determination not to have US foreign policy defined by geopolitical competition, combining a desire to avoid interventions in the Middle East with a determination to fulfill America’s traditional role in the region, support for globalization and integration, and a confidence that the long arc of history favors democracy if Americans can invest in their national power and strength, and a wariness of foreign policy activism without clear strategic objectives. One group of centrists continues to broadly hold this worldview, albeit with updates for the events of the past four years—for instance, they are more focused on Russian interference and human rights abuses inside China.  I have been calling this group the restorationists. The second group—whom I have called the 2021 Democrats—see Trump as an existential threat to American democracy and the international order. But they also believe that the world has changed in fundamental ways in the past eight years since President Xi Jinping came to power in China, Vladimir Putin returned as Russia’s president, and Obama was reelected. Nationalist populists have gained power in several countries leading to a weakening of democratic institutions and an existential crisis for centrists. Authoritarianism has used new technologies to modernize its tactics and tools of repression and control. Autocratic leaders have become more assertive and aggressive internationally as the domestic and international constraints fell away. Shared problems, such as climate change and pandemics, have worsened, but international cooperation has become harder to achieve and to explain to domestic audiences. The conviction that the world has fundamentally changed has led the 2021 Democrats to revisit the core tenets and assumptions of Democratic foreign policy in at least four areas: China, cooperation among democracies, foreign economic policy, and the Middle East.

The china challenge

No issue has been more controversial or widely discussed than how the United States should approach China. In 2018, Kurt Campbell, the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs during the Obama administration, and Ely Ratner, Biden’s deputy national security adviser in Obama’s second term, published an influential article in Foreign Affairs arguing that some of the key assumptions underpinning China policy in successive administrations—for instance, that commercial engagement with China would lead to economic liberalization, and China would become a responsible stakeholder in the international order—were wrong. A year later Campbell coauthored another article in the same publication, this time with Jake Sullivan, who held several senior positions in the Obama administration, on how the United States could take a more competitive approach to China while avoiding confrontation. Although there is a spectrum of opinion among the 2021 Democrats, some generalizations are possible. They generally believe that under Xi China has become more of a dictatorship than a merely autocratic system where power is shared or at least somewhat limited by a politburo. It is becoming more repressive, as demonstrated by the deployment of facial recognition technologies and social credit systems, the widespread use of concentration camps in Xinjiang, and the destruction of Hong Kong’s One Country Two Systems model. What they are unsure about is the degree to which this will transform China’s behavior internationally, which brings us to the second generalization. They want the United States to adopt a more competitive strategy than the Obama administration but they are preoccupied with the question of how to blend competition and diplomacy so rivalry does not turn into confrontation and conflict and so some cooperation on shared interests remains possible. Both parts of this equation are important. They are more willing than the Trump administration to invest in diplomacy with China but they will not dial back competition in exchange for cooperation on shared problems, as the Obama administration was sometimes willing to do. The 2021 Democrats worry the United States is falling behind technologically and economically and they believe major changes to US policy are required to get back into the lead. They want America’s alliances and partnerships, including across the Atlantic, to address the China challenge. They also believe that competing with China entails significant changes to domestic policy, including using industrial policy to develop the manufacturing base and modernizing the national infrastructure. They are open to the possibility of a limited decoupling between the United States and China, particularly on technology and supply chains for critical health supplies and other strategically important parts of the economy. By contrast, the restorationists tend to be less willing to accept that Xi has transformed China into a different type of regime that is dictatorial, ideologically motivated, and determined to overturn key parts of the liberal international order. They stress the continuity of today’s China with the early and pre-Xi periods. They are less pessimistic about the changes in the distribution of power and whether the United States should use the China threat to mobilize the political system behind domestic changes. They are highly skeptical of any decoupling between the United States and China. Seen in retrospect, they do not believe that Obama got China wrong.

cooperation among democracies

If the Democrats have one big idea it is that the United States must deepen its cooperation with other democracies. At first glance, this is not new. Proposals for a concert or league of democracies have been around for at least 15 years but the Trump administration has unintentionally given the concept new life. The Trump administration’s infringement of democracy at home combined with the president’s preference for authoritarianism overseas makes cooperation with other democracies an obvious and necessary corrective to the Trump years. The question is what form will this take? In its most basic form—and what Biden has already publicly committed to—the United States would convene a summit of democracies, modeled on the nuclear security summit, in which democracies would commit to strengthen democracy at home and overseas. The United States would also deepen its engagement with democratic allies. However, the 2021 Democrats have a more radical version in mind. The 2021 Democrats see democracy versus authoritarianism as a fault-line in world politics. They want the United States to make democratic cooperation an organizing principle of its foreign policy, partly as a means of competing with China and partly because they believe that democracy itself is at grave risk. They want democracies to become collectively resilient, including by partially decoupling from authoritarian countries. They want to work with other free societies to promote liberal norms in the global order and to compete with China and Russia in international institutions. Restorationists, on the other hand, worry about creating an ideological fault-line in world politics that exacerbates competition with China. They see cooperation among democracies as just one piece of a larger diplomatic strategy. They tend to be more optimistic about the fate of democracy in the medium to long term.

foreign economic policy

In an article in early 2020, Jake Sullivan, Biden’s former national security adviser, and Jennifer Harris, a former Obama administration official, document new ways of thinking about global economics and trade. Moderate domestic economic thinkers, they say, are reckoning with ideas that neoliberalism got wrong over the past decade. The foreign economic policy world needs to do the same. Sullivan and Harris argue for reforming trade deals to target tax havens, prevent currency manipulation, improve wages, and generate investment in the United States. Industrial policy should be used to compete with China, particularly in new technologies. Addressing the problem posed by monopolies (particularly in the tech sector) is an important part of rebalancing globalization. The Sullivan-Harris agenda tracks neatly with thinking on the progressive side of the Democratic Party where thinkers like Ganesh Sitaranman, who advised former Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren, argued that US foreign policy should take geo-economics much more seriously. Authoritarianism, the progressives argue, thrives on corruption, oligarchy, and kleptocracy, and it poses a threat to democracy from within as well as from without. To counter it, the United States must root out corruption and reform the global economy, including eliminating tax havens, regulating global finance, stopping illicit international financial flows, and tackling inequality. The 2021 Democrats are also willing to use the China challenge, which they believe is real and daunting, to mobilize support for an ambitious economic agenda domestically and internationally. They see China as the glue that could hold a coalition for reform together, facilitating a greater role for government in reindustrializing democratic economies, particularly on high-end technology, and modernizing their infrastructure. It could also incentivize much greater economic cooperation and coordination between democracies so they can present Beijing with a united front. The restorationists tend to favor reengaging in free trade deals like TTIP and TPP, they are reluctant to use responding to China as an organizing principle for the policy because they believe it might contribute to a new Cold War, and they are more incrementalist on reforms to international finance and the global economy.

Rethinking the middle east

The final area of debate is on the Middle East. Centrist Democrats now openly question whether the region is worth the high levels of military engagement the United States has maintained for decades. In an article for Foreign Affairs in early 2019, Obama administration officials Tamara Wittes and Mara Karlin argued that “although the Middle East still matters to the United States, it matters markedly less than it used to.” In early 2020, Martin Indyk, Obama’s envoy for Israeli-Palestinian peace, wrote that after a lifetime of supporting a very activist US role in the region, he is now of the view that it is no longer worth it. All three favor a significant reduction in US goals in the Middle East. This is not only about avoiding unnecessary military interventions. Indeed, some of those who want to pivot away from the Middle East acknowledge the need for continued operations against ISIS or its affiliates even as they want to avoid more protracted and large-scale interventions. It is mainly about downsizing America’s traditional commitments, including to the Gulf Arab allies. There are dissenting views within the reformist camp. Sullivan and Daniel Benaim, who also served in the Obama administration, have argued for a much more ambitious and assertive diplomatic initiative to forge an agreement between the region’s major powers, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, that would make more use of leverage than the Obama administration did. On the Middle East, the restorationists have been relatively silent. One can assume that they will seek to start back up where Obama left off—resurrecting the Iran nuclear deal and working with US allies to push back against Iran and to counter ISIS. There may also be a renewed effort to save the two-state solution, albeit without using leverage to dramatically increase pressure on Israel. On each of these areas—China, cooperation among democracies, foreign economic policy, and the Middle East—the debate is between those who see little reason to fundamentally change the assumptions underpinning Obama’s approach and those who do. Some of this divide is generational, although the lines can be blurred. The 2021 Democrats also tend to have the urgency of a group that believes the free world is slipping away and can only be salvaged with major changes in approach, not just from Trump but from Obama too. No one really knows where Biden himself comes down on these questions—both are compatible with his worldview. Restorationists and the 2021 Democrats are both guaranteed to be represented in his administration but there is an open question as to whether any of the most senior figures on the national security team carry the reform banner. The most likely outcome is that these dividing lines continue over into a Biden administration and shape the internal debates and public discourse.

[armeniaitn]

Nagorno-Karabakh: A peace process with little peace and little process

New Post has been published on https://armenia.in-the.news/politics/nagorno-karabakh-a-peace-process-with-little-peace-and-little-process-51858-20-08-2020/

Nagorno-Karabakh: A peace process with little peace and little process

Since a Russian-brokered ceasefire in 1994 brought an end to six years of often intense fighting in the majority Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh in southwestern Azerbaijan, the conflict over the territory between Armenia and Azerbaijan has officially been what diplomats like to call “frozen”. Clashes between the Caucasus neighbours took place in 2016, however, and more recently last month, making the relative peace in the disputed region look increasingly fragile.

While part of the Soviet Union, Nagorno-Karabakh had autonomous status – although autonomy in practice meant very little in the USSR – within Azerbaijan despite being populated primarily by Armenians. At the time, the all-encompassing authority of the Soviet Union was enough to keep ethnic tensions in check. But as the Soviet Union collapsed, so did the peace.

In 1988 the region – located wholly inside of Azerbaijani territory – declared itself part of Armenia, then in 1991 proclaimed its independence. A full-scale war erupted between Armenia and Azerbaijan, who both viewed, and still view, the territory as theirs. By the time of the 1994 ceasefire, the region had suffered 30,000 casualties, and thousands more had fled. Armenia – very much in the ascendancy when fighting stopped – de facto controlled not just Nagorno-Karabakh but also a portion of the surrounding territory.

Since then there have been regular skirmishes along the line of contact despite both countries committing – on paper at least – to resolving the dispute, primarily under auspices of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) Minsk Group, which includes Russia, France and the United States.

It has become what one analyst dubbed “a peace process with little peace and little process”.

No peace, no process

In April 2016 the region saw its biggest outbreak of violence since the 1990s: the so-called “four-day war”. Armenia claimed that Azerbaijan was attempting to seize territory within Nagorno-Karabakh, and there were an estimated 350 casualties across both sides – forces and civilians – before Russia, again, brokered a new ceasefire.

Most recently, on July 12, partly as a result of peace negotiations going nowhere but also because of domestic politics in the two countries and the highly volatile situation on the ground, fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan broke out again, although not in the Nagorno-Karabakh region itself. This time, both sides accused the other of shelling civilian areas on their shared border between Tavush in northeast Armenia and the Tovus district of Azerbaijan. Eleven soldiers and one civilian were killed on the Azerbaijani side, while Armenia lost four soldiers, including two officers.

Zaur Shiriyev, a Caucasus analyst at International Crisis Group says that the latest round of violence probably began as a small incident, given impetus by an untenable peace process. “Negotiations aren’t yielding any results,” he says, “and that raises tensions in international border areas, so each side has been expecting the other to attack.”

The killing of a popular Azerbaijani general in the clashes prompted thousands of demonstrators to take to the streets in Baku, in a rare display of public anger in what is an infamously authoritarian country. Protesters demanded mobilisation, yelling “Karabakh is Azerbaijan”, and occasionally clashing police. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev labelled the protesters “peaceful patriots” who had been “led astray” by opposition activists who are “worse than Armenians”.

The next day, domestic tensions escalated further in Azerbaijan. Mr Aliyev fired his foreign minister Elmar Mammadyarov, accusing him of being too timid and weak, and participating in “meaningless negotiations”. He was replaced by the erstwhile education minister Jeihun Bayramov, who has next to no diplomatic experience.

Armenia has since claimed that it repelled an Azerbaijani attack on July 21 in the same region, an accusation Baku vehemently denies. In retaliation, Azerbaijan accused the Armenian prime minister, Nikol Pashinyan, of undermining peace talks chaired by the Minsk Group. This is partly due to Yerevan’s direct discussions with authorities in Karabakh, which is not recognised as a UN member state, and with whom Baku refuses to negotiate.

A new battleground

Richard Giragosian, the founding director of the Regional Studies Centre (RSC), an independent Armenian think tank, views the recent clashes as a turning point. In his opinion, a new battleground has been opened up.

“This attack on Armenia proper was made some 300 kilometers from the usual battleground of Nagorno-Karabakh, and unlike past fighting, the latest escalation was an unusual attempt by Azerbaijani forces to dislodge and seize Armenian territory,” he tells Emerging Europe.

While the nature of the attack itself is heavily disputed by Baku, its location is not, and this venturing beyond the usual perimeters of the conflict does not bode well for the future of the region. Moreover, the show of force on both sides hints at greater escalation, where the deployment of forces is no longer just for diplomatic or political purposes.

“I do not expect any positive developments in the near future,” says Farid Shafiyev, chairman of the Centre of Analysis of International Relations in Baku. According to Dr Shafiyev, this is as a result of Armenia’s “unrelenting push” for control of the region.

“Armenia wants to solidify the results of its occupation of Azerbaijani territories and to maintain the status quo of occupation,” he says.

Another reason for pessimism is the domestic situation in both countries. The recent Azerbaijani appointment of Mr Bayramov, the former education minister, lacking in diplomatic skills, concerns Armenia. “It further implies a shift to a new strategy relying more on force of arms than on diplomatic dialogue,” explains Mr Giragosian. Furthermore, a recent shift in power structures within the Azerbaijani government have lead many to suspect that an internal power struggle is taking place, where only the defeat of Armenia will secure victory.

For Armenia, a country still enjoying the afterglow of its so-called Velvet Revolution in 2018 – which put Mr Pashinyan in office – the rallying effect of the war has served a different purpose. Here, according to Mr Giragosian, the country is employing a “small-state soft-power” model that aims to elevate diplomacy rather than the threat of force, demonstrated by its direct negotiations with Karabakh.

“Armenia has an opportunity and an imperative to differentiate itself from illiberal or authoritarian modes of managing conflict. Authoritarian conflict management requires higher levels of coercive power and evasion of democratic oversight that Armenia has neither the capacity nor the appetite for after the Velvet Revolution,” Mr Giragosian tells Emerging Europe.

However, for Dr Shafiyev, Armenia’s newfound diplomatic soft power can be just as threatening, and hope in Azerbaijan that the Velvet Revolution would bring change were quickly dashed.

“[Pashinyan’s] rhetoric became more nationalistic and expansionist,” says Dr Shafiyev. This rhetoric was on display for all to see last August when he addressed a crowd in territory that Armenia occupies but which are internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan. Pashinyan called for unification between Armenia and Karabakh, declaring: “Karabakh is Armenia, period”.

“All of these moves suggest that there’s going to be no change in Armenian policy, which is received in Azerbaijan as the continued policy of annexation,” says Laurence Broers, Caucasus programme director for Conciliation Resources. “The longer the conflict goes on, the less likely it is that Azerbaijan is going to get minimal concessions or results, never mind the return of Nagorno-Karabakh itself.”

The international context

Contained within the region, this sharp polarisation and aggressive rhetoric from both Armenia and Azerbaijan is concerning enough for those living in Karabakh who want the dispute resolved, but when expanded into the international arena, the stakes become a lot higher.

For a region rich in oil and gas, stuck in between global powers, all sides are treading on thin ice. Destabilisation could spell not just a damaging war for Armenia and Azerbaijan, but a potential proxy war for the region’s other stakeholders.

Russia is officially an ally of Armenia as part of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), but has sold arms to both sides. Moreover, its notable silence regarding the recent skirmishes has left many Armenians feeling that they are being taken for granted and that Moscow is seeking better relations with Baku, a more palatable authoritarian partner for Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin.

However, if there is one thing that both sides can agree on, it is that Russia is a disappointment. Azerbaijan has expressed disdain at Russia’s help for Armenia on the front line, notably its delivery of equipment for electronic warfare, which was the weakest link in the Armenian military.

While the European Commission’s Vice-President Josep Borrell did manage to speak with both Yerevan and Baku last month, beating Moscow to the punch, the West is similarly seen another disappointing partner in peace negotiations.

The other members of the Minsk Group, France and the US, are viewed by Azerbaijan as being hardly involved, not least due to the presence of large Armenian diasporas in both countries.

For Dr Shafiyev, Western involvement creates further disillusionment with the multinational peace process from the Azerbaijani point of view. “Unfortunately, Western experts usually treat conflicting sides equally, unlike in the conflicts in Ukraine, Georgia or Moldova,” he says.

Turkey, on the other hand, is an avid supporter of Azerbaijan and has a large Azeri population. However, Dr Shafiyev tells Emerging Europe that despite being Azerbaijan’s strongest ally, “Turkey was not so active in countering the influence of other regional players.” However, he does concede that Ankara has recently indicated strong support which might change the balance of power in the region.

“The possibility for greater power intervention in energy-rich Azerbaijan, when and where such possible instability may invite a new arena for real competition between Russia and Turkey, may eclipse the already latent clash of interests between Moscow and Ankara in both Syria and Libya,” adds Mr Giragosian.

Another potential player is Iran, which recently offered to mediate. “Although this was never a viable alternative,” Mr Giragosian explains, “the offer itself is a display of Iranian determination to plant its flag in what may become a more robust reassertion of its presence and position in the South Caucasus.”

For the 150,000 residents of Nagorno-Karabakh, the increased tensions and international meddling has tangible, tragic consequences. Farmers are struggling to harvest crops in fields riddled with land mines, and water supplies which are damaged. Young people are emigrating in ever greater numbers, as tax breaks, subsidies, and other initiatives to try to convince these people to stay continue to fail. Some residents of the region have given up repairing their damaged homes: crumbling fatalism, a metaphor for the failing peace process.

While Baku and Yerevan, not to mention Moscow, Ankara, Washington, and Paris are tied in a war of words, a diplomatic zero-sum game that ends only with renewed hostilities, the disputed territory itself is suffering.

—

Unlike many news and information platforms, Emerging Europe is free to read, and always will be. There is no paywall here. We are independent, not affiliated with nor representing any political party or business organisation. We want the very best for emerging Europe, nothing more, nothing less. Your support will help us continue to spread the word about this amazing region.

You can contribute here. Thank you.

Read original article here.

[day0one]

14 Facts About Obama's Presidency Most People Don’t Know

Obama's Presidency: The Facts People have many perceptions of how the US economy or the country as a whole has done during the Obama years. Depending on your political views, you may think the country did exceptionally well or was teetering on the verge of collapse.

Listed below are fourteen objective facts, without interjected opinion, about the state of America under the leadership of President Obama. Every statement is followed up with a link to a reputable source where you can verify the fact for yourself.

1. We had a record 90 straight months of economic expansion. That’s right: For ninety consecutive months, the US economy got progressively better. That includes a new record for consecutive months of private sector job growth. Forbes magazine (which is no fan of President Obama) crunched the numbers and demonstrated how the economic recovery under President Obama was better in just about every measurable way than the recovery under President Reagan.

Source: Obama Out-Performs Reagan on Jobs, Growth, and Investing; Forbes magazine.

2. We enjoyed the longest period of private sector job creation in American history. This statistic also comes from the Forbes magazine article listed above. In fact, during Obama's presidency, we enjoyed 75 straight months of private sector job creation. That is the longest period of job creation since the Department of Labor has been keeping statistics.

Source: Obama’s Claim That Businesses Are in the "Longest Uninterrupted Stretch of Job Creation": The Washington Post.

Source: A Record 75 Straight Months of Job Growth Under Obama: Money

3. Unemployment dropped from 10.1% in October of 2009 to 4.8% by early 2017. Not only did the unemployment rate drop significantly, but after the recession ended, the US economy gained over thirteen million new jobs. (You can refer to the Forbes article above or check the article below.)

Source: Democratic Presidents Bring It: Obama Shatters Clinton’s Record For Private Sector Job Growth: PoliticusUsa.

It is also worth noting that during the 2012 presidential election, Obama's opponent, Mitt Romney, promised to lower the unemployment rate to 6% by the end of 2016. President Obama exceeded that goal by lowering unemployment to under 6% two full years earlier than Romney had promised.

Source : Romney vows to lower unemployment to 6% by the end of 2016: The Hill

4. The stock market set record highs throughout Obama's presidency. From early 2009 onward, there was a steady upward trend in stock market growth as the economy continued to improve. The Dow Jones Industrial averages reached an all-time high of 18,292 in May, 2015. Since most Americans have 401K retirement investments in the stock market, this growth benefited millions of middle class Americans.

Source: Dow Jones Industrial Average Last 10 Years: Macrotrends.

The overall trend during the Obama years was a steady reduction in the size of the Budget deficit each year as the economy continued to improve. The overall trend during the Obama years was a steady reduction in the size of the Budget deficit each year as the economy continued to improve. | Source 5. The Federal budget deficit was reduced by two-thirds since 2009. The $1.4 trillion federal budget deficit that Obama inherited in 2009 was in a large part due to the high rate of unemployment and the downturn in the economy. When millions of people were put out of work in 2008 and 2009, it resulted in far less income taxes and less economic activity to generate federal revenue. As millions of people regained employment, there were billions more in tax dollars generated. As a result, the deficit got smaller each year. The 2015 deficit was $439 billion, the smallest deficit since 2007, and roughly 70% lower than it was in 2009.

Source: What is the Deficit?: USGovernmentSpending.com.

6. Under President Obama, government spending increased less than it did under President's Bush and Reagan. You may have heard critics say that President Obama is spending money wildly and running up our debt. According to this article from Forbes, during his first term, Obama increased spending by 1.4% annually, far less than President Reagan (8.7%) or George W. Bush (8.1%). According to another article from the Washington Post, Obama increased spending 3.3% annually. In any event, Obama increased spending less than any president since Eisenhower.

Sources: Who Is the Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama? Forbes magazine.

The Facts About the Growth of Spending Under Obama: Washington Post.

Federal Spending Grew More under Bush and Reagan than Under Obama

7. For 95% of American taxpayers, income taxes dropped as low or lower than any point in the previous 50 years. After President Obama took office, thousands of Tea Party members all over the country held rallies protesting Obama’s tax increases. At that time, President Obama had actually passed several tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Most of the Tea Partiers who were protesting had only seen their taxes decrease under Obama, yet polls indicated that most Tea Party members wrongly believed their taxes had gone up.

In fact, the only people whose income taxes went up during Obama’s presidency were those making $400,000 per year or more. That's less than 2% of the population. For the vast majority of people, tax rates were lower or the same as when Obama first took office. The article below from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explains this in greater detail.

Source: Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families Remain Near Historic Lows, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

8. Dependence on foreign oil was greatly reduced due to record domestic oil production and improved fuel efficiency standards. While some claim that oil production declined under President Obama, the truth is just the opposite. Oil production reached record highs. The United States produces so much oil that we export more oil and gasoline than we import.

Source: IndexMundi.

9. At least 18 million more Americans now have health insurance than before. Depending on whose numbers you use, anywhere from 12 to 18 million Americans acquired health insurance due to the Affordable Care Act. Now that those millions of Americans have insurance, the rest of us are no longer on the hook to pay for their healthcare when they get sick. This saves the American people billions of dollars in the long run.

Source: Obamacare Helped Up to 10 Million Get Insurance, Gallup Finds: NBC News.

10. The Affordable Care Act has added years to the life of Medicare. The Medicare trust fund had been on course to run out of money by the end of 2016. But due to cost savings from the Affordable Care Act and lower healthcare expenses, Medicare’s trust fund was able to remain stable until the year 2030 without cutting benefits.

Source: Medicare, Social Security Disability Fund Headed in Different Directions; The Wall Street Journal.

11. Since passage of the Affordable Care Act, we are seeing the slowest rate of increase in healthcare costs since 1960. Healthcare costs will always go up, but contrary to Republican predictions, healthcare costs increased at a much slower pace since the passage of the ACA.

Source: Trends in Health Care Cost Growth and the Role of the Affordable Care Act; White House Report.

12. We had fewer soldiers, sailors, and airmen in war zones than at any time in the previous 12 years. By the end of his presidency, with the end of the Iraq war and the steady withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, we had far fewer people in war zones than any time since 2002.

13. There were zero successful attacks by al Qaeda on US soil while Obama was president. Despite Dick Cheney’s warning that if voters elected a Democrat as president, we’d be “hit again and hit hard” by al Qaeda, we were actually far safer from terrorist attacks on US soil than we were under the previous president. There have been several unsuccessful attacks against the US under both Bush and Obama, but under Obama, al Qaeda was largely unsuccessful in striking the US on our home soil.

Source: Timeline of Al Qaeda Attacks

14. We caught and deported more illegal immigrants during Obama's presidency than ever before. Despite the mythology that was being spread about our "open border" with Mexico, the numbers prove that President Obama turned back and deported more illegal immigrants than any other president. Obama's supporters often criticized him for this fact.

Politifact checked the claim that President Obama turned away more illegal immigrants than any other president, and they confirmed that under President Obama, the US turned back or deported an average of 32,886 people per month. That's a far greater rate than any other president in history by far.

Source: Has Barack Obama deported more people than any other president in U.S. history? Tampa Bay Times.

Additional Facts About Economic Gains with Obama's Presidency Although all of the facts stated above can be confirmed through multiple sources, most Americans are not aware of these positive statistics. I invite you to do your own research and check these facts for yourself.

The truth is, most other presidents would envy President Obama’s record which has flourished despite the fact that he inherited the results of the worst economic crash since the Great Depression.

If you feel particularly ambitious, feel free to research these additional facts:

Since Obama became president, our economy has gone from losing 750,000 jobs per month to adding 250,000 jobs per month. That’s a net improvement under Obama of about 1 million jobs per month! Before Obama became president, our financial system was in ruins and millions of people were at risk of losing their life savings. Now, the financial loopholes have been fixed and we are no longer at risk of another financial collapse. In just 7 years under Obama, there were more than three times as many jobs created as there were in the whole 8 years under George W. Bush. President Obama passed credit card reforms that protect consumers from excessive fees, rate hikes, deceptive marketing, and unreasonable due dates. Thanks to Obamacare, senior citizens have saved billions of dollars on prescription drugs. The Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to spend at least 80% of collected premiums on healthcare. As a result, millions of Americans have received refunds from their health insurance companies. Source: Health Insurers Set to Give Out More Obamacare Refunds; Huffington Post Business.

Despite the unprecedented obstructionism and record number of filibusters used by Republicans to kill even the most routine legislation, the fact remains that the American people are profoundly better off today than they were before President Obama took office, in almost every measurable way.

Note From The Author For those of you who disagree with, or dislike this article and you want to leave a comment, please give some specifics or make some meaningful comment about what you disagree with. I have always kept all comments visible, positive or negative. But if all you are going to do is say this article is BS without elaborating or specifying what you disagree with, then I will no longer keep those kinds of comments.

Feel free to tell me this article is BS but put some thought into your comments and don't just waste time with pointless insults.

This content reflects the personal opinions of the author. It is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and should not be substituted for impartial fact or advice in legal, political, or personal matters.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS Question:Do these facts derive from "fake news"? Answer: No, none of this information came from Breitbart, Infowars, or any othe fake news site.

Helpful 27 Question:Where did you get your facts? Answer: There are links to source information throughout the article. You can independently verify every single fact in this article quite easily.

Helpful 5 Question:Regarding Obama's presidency, what about people that left the workforce and the quality of jobs he created? Why don’t you measure his numbers from before the recession? Answer:

[thinktosee]

WHO ARE WE?

Image courtesy Asiaone.com

A. OPENER

“Slavery! Why, no, we’re against it! If we are forced to have it in the home or in factories, fine, that’s the normal run of things, but boasting about it, is going too far.”

-  From Nobel Prize recipient, Albert Camus’ 1956 novel, “The Fall”, which was recently featured in this memorial blog.

B. INTRODUCTION

This post is inspired by a parent of a dear friend of David’s. Recently she, a loving and thoughtful human being, shared with me, alarming news reports about the appalling living conditions in which the construction workers, most of whom are migrants from the Indian sub-continent, have had to bear in the wealthy and globalized city of Singapore. Admittedly, my knowledge of their plight prior to this was limited to tangential observations of these hard-working and disciplined folks slogging in the equatorial heat - paving roads, digging tunnels, building our majestic skyscrapers, and sacrificing their youth and good health in the process. And all for a pittance. 

There are over 284,000 construction workers and 255,800 foreign domestic workers or helpers in Singapore, according to the city’s administrators. (1)  A renowned academic research institution stated that “the average construction worker’s salary may be declared as S$1,200 but in reality, it is closer to as little as S$18 (US$12.60) a day, as their employers make deductions to pay for levies and housing. To get more overtime pay, most of them also work 12-hour days with only one or two days off a month.” (2)

A notion which should be clarified at this point is that these folks are not immigrants, as in the Western-derived sense. Instead, they are contract labour, legally trafficked to the city at great personal expense to them, by licensed agents, from among the least economically-empowered societies in the region. Their contracts in general are for two years or so. Following the expiration of the term, the contract is either renewed for another two years or if not, the worker is repatriated. A Singaporean citizenship is not generally offered to them. Compare this to Europe, Australia and the USA where the foreign worker is an immigrant. He or she is eligible for citizenship and the privileges which accrue from that, in due course. 

C. THE ROOTS OF THE PROBLEM

Image courtesy Shutterstock.com

Singapore was a creation of the British upper class. In colonial times, immigration mainly from China, British India and Dutch Indonesia was encouraged to support the large colonial plantations, growing transportation networks and other infrastructural needs in Malaya, of which Singapore was administratively a part of. A majority of these early immigrants were refugees or coolies displaced from wars and famines in their respective societies. Most Singaporeans today may trace our descendants, with justifiable pride, to these early settlers.

Labour policy in post-independence Singapore, especially from the late 1960s, somewhere between a budding democracy and the birth of a dictatorship, rescinded the colonial immigration practice, and conceived instead, a temporary or contractual non-immigrant, low wage, labour force from the region. This policy continues to this day. In the same period, immigrants with a professional background, and those of substantial means, were encouraged to take up residence and citizenship in Singapore. While this was justified at a national level toward economic gain and social cohesion, it however had an unintended, yet damaging effect of severing the egalitarian values embedded then among a settler population, particularly as the city progressed to a latent technocracy, and first world economic status. Once a worker is disenfranchised or denied a path to equal rights or to citizenship and its accompanying privileges, assimilation then is clearly no longer a favoured approach by the state. A whole new identity is thereon manufactured  – one which is physically, socially and emotionally divorced from the general population - a new working and disenfranchised class which for all intents and purposes, is ripe for wholesale exploitation, without any regard to its moral implications. I am one of those and regretfully, who had failed, as a citizen and human being, to speak out against this wanton abuse, until now. And to think that my grandparents emigrated from India as penniless settlers, once upon a time. 

D. COVID-19 PANDEMIC AND THE REVELATIONS OF THE WORKERS’ LIVING CONDITIONS

Image courtesy Edgar Su/Reuters/The Guardian

The on-going pandemic and media attention have made the public more aware of the appalling extent to the living arrangements of the migrant construction workers in Singapore. The following from the UK’s Guardian news media may be enlightening : “In recent weeks, as the coronavirus has ripped through the facilities, their unsanitary and overcrowded conditions have quickly become the subject of international attention. Singapore, recently lauded for its gold-standard approach to testing and tracing, now demonstrates both the dangers of neglecting marginalised communities, and the vulnerability of nations to a second wave of infections.” (3)

I recall an instance several months ago on a bright Sunday afternoon, whilst I drove through an old and dilapidated industrial estate on the island. There were thousands of workers, clearly on their time off, laying about, socializing and relaxing on the patchy fields, and outside the nearby ageing structures, which now were their dormitories. The thought of South Africa’s apartheid-era Bantustan, did cross my mind then, and starkly. (4)

With the onset of the pandemic, it was revealed that an extremely large and worrisome number of infections were attributed to the construction workers, many of whom were crammed in unhygienic dormitories featuring 15-20 individuals per room. I surmise this had been the standard for a very long time, which incidentally, was perhaps similar to the living arrangements of our forebears when they settled in Singapore long ago. A related question follows : Have we really progressed since?

Also of heightened concern, is the fact the dormitories are in general, operated by exchange-listed corporations. In an instance where I had the opportunity to explore online, I discovered, much to my consternation, that the total number of beds, and not rooms, appears to be one standard of measurement of the wealth or success of the corporation. It would be nice if they included rooms instead, the same way hotels do. And I would be doubly pleased if the corporation could kindly amend the legal status of the dormitory to a cooperative instead, where everyone, that is, the owners and tenants, may share in the profits. A partnership as this should be among the gold standard to aim for.

The large number of covid-19 cases in the workers’ dormitories is an unwanted, yet well-deserved reflection of our inhumane labour laws and practices. What have we done to these good folks who after all, are here to help us to make this a better nation? What have they done to deserve our hostility and ingratitude? Is this how our forebears, most of whom were penniless immigrants, would have wanted? Who are we? Aren’t we the spoilt and ungrateful brats!

E. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A COMPASSIONATE SINGAPORE

Images courtesy Pinterest

It is clear our labour laws and practices have to evolve to justly reflect a first world culture and standard. To properly reflect who we are or aspire to be. The few prescriptions here are certainly not exhaustive, but should hopefully help point the way :

1. Universal legal minimum wage for everyone, regardless of citizenship status. There has to be public recognition that the low or slave-wage earners are in reality, subsidizing everyone else, especially the wealthiest.

2. Offer permanent residency and citizenship to workers who wish to stay, work and assimilate. Exclusionary practices are damaging to society. Diversity is a strength and not a liability.

3. Include the workers’ opinions and participation in every decision regarding their living conditions. Most importantly, assimilate them to society. This will be most fruitful for the nation.

4. Corporate dormitory owners and managers to share the profits with the workers. It is due to the absence of universal rights for the workers, including robust and independent workers’ unions, that profit-sharing and other worker welfare-related and sensible actions were regrettably never contemplated.

5. Singapore to accede to all related international conventions on labour rights. (5)

6. Singapore to accede to all international conventions on human rights, including the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948. (6)

7. Legislate against discrimination, in any form.

8. Include the foreign construction and domestic workers in the covid-19 relief funds which were offered to citizens recently. (7) We should no longer discriminate henceforth, as a matter of pubic policy and practice.

9. Create a fund for workers from the monthly levy which the state imposes on the employer for each worker. This levy, totalling billions of dollars, has been one of the most exploitative features of Singapore’s labour practices. It is a tax by the state for which the worker does not receive anything in return and hence does not materially benefit. He/she is by present appearance, a traded commodity.

10. For every edifice or structure which the workers helped to build, please do lay a plaque at the front entrance, listing their names and country of origin. This will of necessity, enhance their pride and dignity, as it will surely do to ours too. Perhaps someday, their descendants may view the plaque and appreciate the gesture, as I am sure, my descendants will too.

For now, we should reflect on our actions or lack of, which at present, have tragically and unacceptably imperilled the health and safety of these noble human beings. We have a good deal to answer for.  

F. CONCLUSION  - NO GOING BACK

Image courtesy Pinterest

To be a world class city, we must go beyond appearances. Our standards of labour practices and human rights must evolve to reflect the highest values of humanity. We are a long way from these, however. Equalitarian and egalitarian concepts are noble features for a stable, healthy and prosperous society. We must re-discover this long-lost path which our forebears worked so hard to lay. There are more than half a million low-wage, migrant workers in Singapore who are toiling round the clock, under very difficult situations, to embed the foundation for a better life for their families back home. Let us all help to see to it that they stay healthy and that they do prosper as our forebears did, and as we have since. I like to close with something which my friend, Rick lovingly shared recently in a post. He eloquently defines the essence of a great society :

“It is probably wiser to judge the health and welfare of a society by looking at its poorest, not its richest.”

-         Rick Cole https://thinktosee.tumblr.com/post/614807462821888000/stories-amidst-the-pandemic-the-coles

In the Spirit of David Cornelius Singh

Sources/References

1. https://www.mom.gov.sg/documents-and-publications/foreign-workforce-numbers

2. https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/gia/article/foreign-domestic-workers

3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/23/singapore-million-migrant-workers-suffer-as-covid-19-surges-back

4. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bantustan

5. https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:11210:0::NO::P11210_COUNTRY_ID:103163

6. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

7. https://www.gov.sg/article/financial-support-to-help-singaporeans-affected-by-covid-19

[crimethinc]

Why We Fought in Charlottesville: A Letter from an Anti-Fascist on the Dangers Ahead

I am one of the thousands of people who confronted Nazis and white supremacists in Charlottesville, Virginia last weekend. I am a blue-collar person, with a job, family, and responsibilities. I would have preferred to do other things with my weekend. However, I had to ask myself: If these people are allowed to run roughshod over this town, what will they do next?

“We would have been crushed like cockroaches if it were not for the anarchists and the antifascists… They saved our lives, actually. We would have been completely crushed, and I’ll never forget that.”

–Dr. Cornel West

No, I did not behave peacefully when I saw a thousand Nazis occupy a sizable American city. I fought them with the most persuasive instruments at hand, the way both my grandfathers did. I was maced, punched, kicked, and beaten with sticks, but I gave as good as I got, and usually better. Donald Trump says that “there was violence on both sides.” Of course there was. I might add that there were not murderers on both sides—but that’s not really my point.

I would like to ask a different question. What would have happened if there had not been violence on both sides? What would have happened if there had only been violence on one side?

On the night of Friday, August 11, 2017, I saw something that I never thought I would see, and that I hope I never see again: 500 Nazis and white supremacists marching across the campus of the University of Virginia while police did nothing, surrounding 30 counter-demonstrators who were holding hands around a statue of Thomas Jefferson, and beating them with torches while calling them “nigger” and “boy.” By the end of the night, it was clear to me that the “Unite the Right” march had been organized for the express purpose of killing people on Saturday.

Permit me to quote a post from a clergyperson in Charlottesville at length, because it correctly explains what happened on Saturday morning, and why. There are countless other narratives like it online.

“A note on the Antifa:

They are the reason Richard Spencer did not speak today. They are the reason the “Unite the Right” march didn’t happen. They strategically used violent tactics to incite the Nazis to violence, such that the governor declared a state of emergency before noon. Before the “Unite the Right” rally was scheduled to begin.

One could argue this meant Nazis dissipated into the streets faster making it less safe, but let’s be real: Nazis have been making these streets less safe for a long time. They would have been out and about soon enough with or without the antifa.

I was with a group of clergy committed to non-violence today. We did our part. We bore witness to the pain and hatred in this city. We provided pastoral care/support as needed, especially during traumatic violent acts. This was our determined role going into today. Yes, some clergy risked injury and arrest to stop the Nazis. They formed a blockade at the entrance, but they were overpowered by the Nazis. The police did not view us as threatening enough to shut things down, because again, we were no there to threaten.

The antifa strategically incited enough violence before noon to make the police declare it illegal to gather in Emancipation Park. Through this strategic violence they effectively made a previously legally permitted Nazi rally, illegal.

We may not agree with each others tactics. We may have had different goals, but if you’re looking to praise people specifically for shutting down the “Unite the Right” rally, praise/thank the antifa. Not the clergy and not the police.”

The man who murdered Heather Heyer being taken into custody. Class:portrait

I do not want it be soon forgotten that American anarchists and anti-fascists shut down the largest Nazi and white supremacist gathering on US soil in decades. We accomplished this despite being outnumbered, underequipped, and literally fighting up a hill—at great personal risk and at a terrible cost.

What if things had gone differently? What if we had done as the mayor recommended and stayed away from Emancipation Park, so as not to “feed into a cycle of violence”? What if the rally had proceeded as planned? What if Nazis and white supremacists had been able to build momentum into the night? Based on what I saw Friday and Saturday, there is no doubt in my mind what would have happened next: they would have terrorized the city of Charlottesville. They would have left their leadership a degree of plausible deniablity, broken into smaller groups, and killed and injured any number of people in decentralized locations throughout the city. It was to be their Kristallnacht, their burning cross, their triumphant return.

Instead, they had to leave town in disarray in fear of us, the people of Charlottesville, and the police—in that order. They sent twenty people to the hospital and murdered Heather Heyer.

It could have been much, much worse.

Flowers where Heather Heyer was hit.

These are dark and dangerous times. Nazis and white supremacists have shown that they are ready to kill and able to mobilize in great numbers, and they have the blessing of the President of the United States. They are well on their way to solidifying their position as the paramilitary arm of the Trump administration. These groups hope to be to Trump what ISIS is to Erdogan and what the Taliban is to the government of Pakistan: terrorist auxiliaries that provide strategic depth against enemies of the state.

On the other hand, Nazis and white supremacists discredited themselves completely in the eyes of millions of American people this weekend, as did their President by emboldening and defending them. The names and faces of many of those who participated in the “Unite the Right” rally are being broadcast on twitter feeds such as “yes, you’re racist,” and more extensive doxxing is undoubtedly soon to come. It seems a stressful and rather lonely moment for our opposition.

On the government side, Steve Bannon may or may not lose his job, as usual. As always, Trump is either on the ropes or on the verge of pulling off an authoritarian coup. It may be time for Americans of good conscience to resume the offensive, before this match made in hell has time to regain its footing and to consolidate further.

Donald Trump was elected head of state through the democratic process, of course, as was Adolf Hitler. He has the support of millions of people; so did Adolf Hitler. His government is in bed with people who dream about carrying out a second Holocaust and reinstating slavery, among other things. We have every right to topple this government if we can. It would be unfortunate to look back on this moment with regret, realizing that we missed our chance.

In my opinion, the high-water mark thus far of resistance to the Trump regime was the wave of airport occupations at the end of January, which set in motion a course of events that ultimately led to Steve Bannon being iced out of the foreign policy sphere by the few remaining adults in Trump’s circle. Unfortunately, they left Bannon the domestic sphere as his playpen, and the Deep State doesn’t care very much. No one is coming to save us.

What would it take to rise to this occasion? We would have to mobilize large crowds nationwide to shut down government infrastructure, prioritizing everything nearest and dearest to Bannon and his faction. Something like that might work. I don’t think it’s too late.

Of course, after Charlottesville, all such crowds will be considered soft targets by fascist murderers. We will have to demonstrate that we are able to exert deadly force to deter such attacks, as Redneck Revolt did admirably in Charlottesville.

If Americans of good conscience push hard enough, we may be able to force Trump to abandon Bannon and Bannonism. We might be able to topple Trump entirely. But under no circumstances will anyone with any self-respect ever submit to governance by Nazis. This government and its fascist allies should think carefully before they choose their next move.

In the spirit of Robert Grodt, who fought fascism in Raqqa, and in the spirit of Heather Heyer, who fought fascism in her own hometown—

An anarchist

This is why.

[nigeiadigitalmarketingcompany]

Links 8/2/19

Digital Elixir Links 8/2/19

Curving – Dog Body Language Silent Conversations

Just 10% of fossil fuel subsidy cash ‘could pay for green transition’ Guardian (original).

Greenland Is Melting Away Before Our Eyes Rolling Stone

The Bizarre, Peaty Science of Arctic Wildfires Wired (Re Silc).

Hawaii Extends Thirty Meter Telescope Permit Amid Protests NPR

Syraqistan

U.S. preparing to withdraw thousands of troops from Afghanistan in initial deal with Taliban WaPo

Brexit

UK faces potential ‘consumer panic’ and ‘security gaps’ under no-deal Brexit, says government document Sky News. With handy, hitherto unpublished chart prepared for the May government.

Gilets Jaunes gather for third “Assembly of Assemblies” ROAR

Emmanuel Macron’s Place in French History? Are You a Yellow Vest? This seems to be the only English-language site focusing exclusively on the gilets jaunes; I’d be interested to know what local readers think of it. (The contrast between coverage of the Hong Kong protesters and coverage of the yellow vests and is remarkable, considering that the latter are at “Acte 37.”)

Inside the Yellow Vests: What the Western media will not report (Part 3) The Saker

China?

Trump says Hong Kong ‘riots’ are a matter for China FT

Hong Kong government warns employees to remain neutral or face consequences on eve of civil servant rally over extradition bill crisis South China Morning Post

Nudge theory:

China's Hong Kong PLA garrison releases video with scenes of 'anti-riot' operations https://t.co/6alAYJ2KQp pic.twitter.com/jFwYa5MUPK

— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) August 1, 2019

On the question of whether the Hong Kong protests are a US-sponsored “color revolution,” alert NC reader MsExPat threw this over the transom:

The line about foreign interference is Beijing boilerplate. Everyone here knows it’s bullshit. Laughable. Beijing is parroting it over and over again for two reasons:

1) It diminishes the agency of and infantilizes Hong Kong people. They are misguided and deluded poor children that couldn’t possibly challenge China unless they had outside help.

2) It’s aimed at the domestic China audience, to pump up China nationalism, which is what the CPC does to keep itself in power. You know, economy slumps, let’s start Japanese bashing.

Is there any chance that there could be some truth in it? It’s a ridiculous thought, but let’s assume it isn’t for the sake of argument. Well, I do live here. We (I mean the US) really are not that good as Lambert has pointed out. On the ground what that means is that we don’t have the kind of deep bench that would give us any ability to maneuver inside the protest movement. The US (and certainly not the CIA) doesn’t have enough young, colloquial Cantonese speakers for one thing. Canada would have a much easier time “directing” the pro dem movement just because their links to Hong Kong are much more recent and stronger! So let’s blame the Canadians haha.

Let’s look at some other evidence: Just before he left for a new post in June, the US Counsel in Hong Kong, Kurt Tong, planned to give a farewell speech highly critical of the current HK government. He was throttled by Trump and ended up having to place his speech somewhere as an op ed instead. That hardly speaks to US involvement in the protests!

The only US connections that the protest movement has consistently been able to count on are a handful of principled anti-Communists in the House and Senate, led by Marco Rubio, who has been a champion for Hong Kong for years now. I respect him for that. He may be a turd in other ways, but he clearly has one or two unwavering principles that don’t relate to donor money or votes. I’m sure supporting Hong Kong is not going to get him any votes in Florida.

The only place that “foreign influence” might be helping Hong Kong protesters is through financial support. But it would not be much $ and it would be funneled through Hong Kong anti-Beijing businessmen like Jimmy Lai, who donates to the pan-Dems generously anyway.

The biggest source of foreign money involved in the protests, though, is coming from Beijing. It’s Beijing who pays for the triads, pays for the cooperation of Hong Kong’s business tycoons, pays for the propaganda and dirty tricks of the DAB (the proxy Beijing party in Hong Kong), pays for the propaganda on TVB (the top broadcast station) pays to control the print media (although Jack Ma bought the SCMP, he’s just their puppet). Any tiny trickle of money that might be going to protesters from small US or UK donations is a piss in the ocean compared to the floods of cash that Beijing pumps in to get its way in Hong Kong. And yet still the Hong Kong people are fighting, and successfully. Doesn’t that tell you something?

* * *

What China’s defence paper tells us about Beijing’s regional ambition The Interpreter

Trump says he’ll put 10% tariffs on remaining China imports AP

K-Pop’s Big China Problem Foreign Policy

Puerto Rico

Trump administration to place new restrictions on billions in aid for Puerto Rico amid island’s political crisis WaPo

Leading indicators. Thread:

I'm seeing a lot of English-language retrospectives of the #RickyRenuncia uprising that leave out two incidents that, in my estimation, were key. First: the fire in front of Fortaleza the night of the 15th.https://t.co/PrFTOiyDCi

— midnucas #PierluisiTraidor (@midnucas) July 28, 2019

New Cold War

Trump Calls Putin To Offer Help Battling Siberian Fires Radio Free Europe

Has a Color Revolution Come to Russia? Probably Not. The National Interest

Landmark US-Russia arms control treaty is dead AP

Pillars of nuclear arms control are teetering FT

RussiaGate

The rise and fall of superhero Robert Mueller Matt Taibbi, UntitledGate. “The whole narrative is the brainchild of Clinton hacks, a handful of overzealous intelligence nuts, and a subset of the Democratic Party’s weakest elected minds, in particular murine ex-prosecutor Schiff, a man who should be selling Buicks back in his hometown Burbank.” You hate to see it.

Here Are 5 Big Holes in Mueller’s Work Aaron Maté, RealClearInvestigations

Justice Department Declines to Prosecute Comey Over Leaked Memo Bloomberg. Of course they did.

Trump Transition

Divided Senate passes 2-year budget deal with military boost Defense News (Re Silc).

Pentagon puts $10B contract on hold after Trump swipe at Amazon Politico

Hacked Emails Show GOP Demands on Border Security Were Crafted by Industry Lobbyists The Intercept

Border Patrol Detained a 9-Year-Old American Girl on Her Way to School for 32 Hours GQ. She had her passport with her.

Opinion: Trump’s cuts to food stamps are indefensible, economically and morally MarketWatch

‘Should Send Shockwaves Across the Nation’: Grave Warnings as McConnell Accelerates Right-Wing Takeover of US Courts Common Dreams (DK).

Democrats in Disarray

Democrats: ‘Moscow Mitch’ would take blame for clearing Trump of impeachment charges McClatchy. “Moscow Mitch,” ffs [puts head in hands].

Demography and the Populists’ Destiny The American Conservative

2020

Imagining a Warren-Buttigieg, or Buttigieg-Warren, Ticket Nicholas Kristof, NYT

Tim Ryan told Bernie Sanders that Medicare-for-all would be bad for unions. Major union leaders disagree. Vox

Canadians worried by plan to let Americans import drugs Business Insider (Re Silc).

Our Famously Free Press

In Rejecting DNC Lawsuit Against Wikileaks, Judge Strongly Defended First Amendment Rights of Journalists Shadowproof (Furzy Mouse).

Big Brother Is Watching You Watch

AI lie detector developed for airport security FT. “One challenge is false positives: a machine might register as suspicious a microexpression if someone is in pain or confused.” Highly unlikely in airports.

Cops Are Giving Amazon’s Ring Your Real-Time 911 Caller Data Gizmodo

L’affaire Joffrey Epstein

Jeffrey Epstein Shows No Sign Of Injuries, Could Spend A Year In Jail Before Trial Forbes

Real Hedge-Fund Managers Have Some Thoughts on What Epstein Was Actually Doing New York Magazine. From two weeks ago, still germane. Not sure the hedgies are right, though!

America’s DIY Phone Farmers Vice

Class Warfare

California’s largest teachers union spent $1 million a month to restrict charter schools Sacramento Bee

High Profile Labor Leader Has a New Gig Fighting Against Teacher’s Unions Portside. Andy Stern. Of course. I remember how hard Stern’s SEIU fought against single payer in 2009-2010.

Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion International Security

Antidote du jour (via):

See yesterday’s Links and Antidote du Jour here.

Links 8/2/19

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2GIsBpH via IFTTT

[go-redgirl]

President Trump Continues To Deliver On His Promise To 'Buy American, Hire American' Fox News.com ^ | July 15, 2019 | Peter Navarro

Candidate Donald J. Trump promised his administration would follow two simple rules: “Buy American and Hire American.” Monday, during the third annual Made in America Showcase at the White House, President Trump will sign the latest in a series of executive orders keeping that promise.

The Buy American Act requires federal agencies to procure domestic iron, steel, and other materials and products for federal projects like airports, roads, and bridges. That’s good policy for at least three reasons

Buy American federal procurement rules provide good manufacturing jobs at good wages, propelling more workers into middle-class prosperity.

In addition, about 20 cents of every Buy American dollar tends to come back to the United States Treasury in the form of taxes paid by corporations and workers earning profits and wages on Buy American projects, and state and local governments benefitting from more sales tax revenues.

Perhaps most importantly, Buy American helps strengthen our manufacturing and defense industrial base in the interests of both economic and national security.

Just weeks after taking office, President Trump signed Executive Order 13788 -- “Buy American I.” This robust order immediately imposed greater oversight to stop unnecessary waivers to federal contractors. As a result, waivers dropped by 15 percent in just one year, and the proportion of federal government contract spending on foreign goods has hit a 10-year low.

Last January, President Trump signed “Buy American II” -- Executive Order 13858. This order closes another costly loophole whereby, prior to this order, Buy American rules were often not applied to many forms of indirect federal government procurement that occurs through federal financial assistance to the states and other entities.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com 

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial KEYWORDS: made in the usa; manufacturing; promises kept; trump45

_______________________________________________________________________

INDIVIDUALS/COMMENT/POSTS:

To: Kaslin If there were really true, he’d (1) Shut down H1B and (2) NOT issue work visas via catch-and-release.

2 posted on 7/15/2019, 10:43:51 AM by Reno89519 (No Amnesty! No Catch-and-Release! Just Say No to All Illegal Aliens! Arrest & Deport!) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Kaslin [“Buy American and Hire American.”]

O.K., now you’re talking crazy!

Pelosi, Schumer, AOC, Ilhan Omar, et al AIN’T gonna like that one bit!

3 posted on 7/15/2019, 10:45:17 AM by SaveFerris (Luke 17:28 ... as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold ......) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Reno89519 If there were really true, he’d (1) Shut down H1B and (2) NOT issue work visas via catch-and-release. ********************************************* The 2nd item SHOULD be taken care of when Trump’s new asylum regulations take effect TOMORROW. The 1st item COULD be at least partially accomplished IF he vetoes the bill, wending it’s way through Congress, which would facilitate 600,000 new hires from India.

Sadly, I don’t think he’ll veto that legislation and show that he STANDS WITH AMERICAN WORKERS and not with the Globalists desiring cheap “labor”.

4 posted on 7/15/2019, 10:59:24 AM by House Atreides (Boycott the NFL 100%— PERMANENTLY)

_______________________________________________________________________ To: Reno89519 I think the work visas that are issued for catch and release should only be government jobs not subject to union rules, *grin*

5 posted on 7/15/2019, 11:17:57 AM by McGavin999 (injustice Roberts to taxpayer. Shut up and pay peons, you don’t need to know who gets your money) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: Reno89519 My read on where Trump stands vis-a-vis work visas:

Like it or not, if he cancels them all and those people have to go home, it WILL create disruptions in the economy. At least in the short term until Americans can be identified, hired and trained to take their places.

The very LAST thing Trump can risk is a disruption in the economy prior to the election. Hence I think this crackdown is going to be a second term project.

6 posted on 7/15/2019, 11:24:43 AM by Buckeye McFrog (Patrick Henry would have been an anti-vaxxer.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Kaslin This is a premature emasculation of the American workforce. It comes down to whether President Trump vetoes the bill turning ‘temporary workers’ into green card holders and their families WE DON’T NEED!!!

7 posted on 7/15/2019, 11:39:38 AM by RideForever ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Kaslin “Buy American federal procurement rules provide good manufacturing jobs at good wages, propelling more workers into middle-class prosperity.”

All well and good, except the price of domestic aluminum has forced American boat mfg. to shut down. When the whole supply chain is closed the factories have to close and the workers are laid-off.

8 posted on 7/15/2019, 11:48:15 AM by Beagle8U (It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you place the blame.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Reno89519 Shut down H1B and (2) NOT issue work visas via catch-and-release. Pres. Jarvanka doesn't want that....

9 posted on 7/15/2019, 11:50:34 AM by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Buckeye McFrog Like it or not, if he cancels them all and those people have to go home, it WILL create disruptions in the economy Disruptions? You mean paying Americans more? That kind of disruption? You are an Anti American worker bigot and why the GOP is never gong to gain a majority.

10 posted on 7/15/2019, 11:52:53 AM by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To: central_va Disruption. As in:

- Right now I am relying on this Indian H1B guy to do IT work to keep my business running.

- If he gets sent home somebody will have to do that.

- My business is not going to run at peak efficiency (or at all) during that time while I am looking for his replacement.

Multiply that by a few hundred thousand instances and you have disruptions in the economy. It’s really simple logistics.

This problem has been around for decades. I for one can wait 15 months for Trump to be safely re-elected before addressing it.

(and...this is a hypothetical. I do NOT own a business and do NOT employ any H1B’s, so don’t even go there)

11 posted on 7/15/2019, 12:19:59 PM by Buckeye McFrog (Patrick Henry would have been an anti-vaxxer.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Buckeye McFrog Right now I am relying on this Indian H1B guy to do IT work to keep my business running. How did you manage to avoid the thousands of American IT workers looking for work to arrive at a foreign H1b worker?

12 posted on 7/15/2019, 12:26:58 PM by RideForever

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OPINIONS:  Get rid of H1B this group have totally taken away all of American Tech Jobs from citizens of this country, by 100%.  

Why is that?

Shouldn’t we have some’TECH’ positions left for Americans In this country that are loyal to the USA and would not be ‘selling’ all our ‘secrets’ to other countries.

Americans of qualified for Tech Positions in this country but only 5% of Tech jobs goes to Americans.

Think about that for a ‘second’.